EXPLOWG THE FEASIBILITY OF A REUSABLE CONTAINER AND BULK PRODUCT DISPENSER SYSTEM iN SUPERMARKETS

by

Angela D. Birch

Submitted in partial ful fillment of the requirernents for the degree Master of Environmental Studies

Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia August 2000

O Copyight by Angela DaBirch, 2000 National Library Bibliothèque nationale (*Iof Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. nie Wsllington Omwa ON KIA ON4 OliawaON KlAONQ Canada canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sen reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de rnicrofiche/nlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Table of Contents Tableofcontents ...... iv List of Figttres ...... viii Abscract ...... ir Acbiowfedgemen~s...... x

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.2 A REUSABLE CONTAINER AND BLJLK DISPENSER SYSTEM ....-1 1.3HYPOTHESIS ...... 2 1.4 STRUCTURE OF THESIS ...... -3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 5 2.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 2.2. PACKAGING...... 5 2.2.1 Overview ...... 5 2.2.2History ...... 9 2.2.3 Functions ...... 10 2.2.4 Problerns ...... 12 2.2.5 Trends and issues ...... 13 2.2.6 Management ...... 14 2.2.6 . (i) Hierarchy of management sîtategies ...... 17 2.2.7 Reusabldrefillable containers and bulk dispensing ...... 20 2.3 CONSUMER BEHAVIOüR ...... 26 2.3.1 History ...... 26 2.3.2 Current grocery shopping behaviour, trends, and issues ...... 27 2.3.3 Environmental consumer behaviour ...... 27 2.4. GREEMNG OF COMPANIES ...... 33 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 39 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 39 3.2 CHOOSING SAMPLE PRODUCTS ...... 39 3.3 EXAMINATION OF HEALTH REGULATIONS ...... 40 3.4 CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE DATA ...... 41 3.4.1Samplesize ...... 41 3.4I .(i) StahStical requirements ...... 41 3.4.1. (ii) Practicafity ...... 43 3.4.2 Customer interviews ...... 44 3.4.2.(i) Questions for customers ...... 44 3.4.2.(ii) Bias ...... 45 3.43 Employee interviews ...... 16 3.4.3. (i) Questions for employees ...... 46 3.4.4 Analysis of customer and epoyee interviews ...... 47 3.4.4 (i) Chi-square analysis ...... 47 3.4.4 (ii)Analysis of responses ...... 48 3.5 MANAGER DATA ...... 48 3.5.1 Questions for managers ...... 49 3.5.2 Analysis ...... 19 3.6SmPLIERDATA ...... 50 3.6.1 Selection ...... 50 3.6.2 Questions for suppliers ...... 50 3.6.3 Interviews ...... 50 3.6.4 Analysis ...... 51 3.7 OVERALL ANALYSIS ...... 51

4 WSULTS ...... 52 4.1 PRODUCT SELECTION ...... 52 1.2 HEALTH REGULATIONS ...... 53 4.3 CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS ...... 55 Responses to questions ...... 55 4.4 EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS ...... 57 Responses to questions ...... 57 4.5 MANAGER INTERVIEWS ...... 62 Responses to questions ...... 62 3.6 SüPfLIER INTERVIEWS ...... 66 Responses to questions ...... 66

5 DISCUSSlON ...... 71 5.1 BARRIERS TO THE PROPOSED SYSTEM ...... 71 5.2 POTENTIAL FOR THE PROPOSED SYSTEM ...... 76 5.3 FEASIBILITY OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM ...... 79 5.4 SUMMARY ...... 81

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 83 6.1 CONCLUSION ...... 83 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 86

APPENDICES ...... 89 APPENDIX A: Interview questions ...... 89 APPENDIX B: informed consent forrns ...... 91 APPENDIX C: Data from customer interviews ...... 93 APPENDIX D: Data from employee interviews ...... 95 APPENDIX E: Data from manager intewiews ...... 100 APPENDIX F: Data €rom supplier interviews ...... 102 APPENDIX G: Chi-square test results ...... 110 WORKS CITED ...... 111

vii List of fimires

Figure 1: Study segments ...... 3 Figure 2: Example of a contingency table ...... 47 Abstract

In the North Amencan lifestyle of today, packaging plays an important role and provides a variety of useful functions. Although much packaging is durable enough to last many years, 90% is disposed of irnmediately after use. The current use and disposal of packaging has negative environmental consequences in terms of resource use and waste disposal. Most existing literature has focused on alleviating these problems through recycling. Little attention has been devoted to reducing the need for packaging through changes in retail practices and consumer behaviour. A potential solution for some of the problems of current packaging practices is a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system in supemarkets. In this system, customers would obtain products in reusable containers from either bulk product dispensers or from over the counter. In the fint case, customers would retum a container to the supermarket and refill it with the product which it originally contained. For example, the customer would take back a ketchup bottle once it was empty and fil1 it with ketchup from a bulk dispenser. In the second case. customen could bnng a Tupperware- like container to a full service counter (e.g. the bakery) and ask the employees to fi11 it with product (e.g. cookies). The feasibility of a reusable container system is explored through a study involving three supermarkets in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The study identifies products that could be offered in such a system; determines if there are any health regulations that would prevent a reusable container system from operating; surveys customers to detemine if they would be willing to participate: surveys supermarket employees and managers to detemine if the system is feasible from an operational perspective; and surveys food suppliers to obtain their opinions of the proposed system. Results indicate that the system wouid be fcasible. Customen appear willing to use a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system. Supermarket employees appear willing to operate it. The majonty of the employees, managers, and suppliers surveyed thought it was feasible. There were sorne concems expressed about the system, such as concems regarding health issues, customer resistance due to inconvenience, and the management of tare (the allowance for the weight of the container), but these problems could likely be resolved. This thesis could not have ken completed without the assistance of a number of people. I would first like to express my appreciation to my supervisor, Professor Ray Côté of the School for Resource and Environmentd Studies, for his guidance throughout the thesis process. 1 also want to thank my other cornmittee mernber, Professor Don Patton of the School of Business Administration, for his very helpful comments.

1 would like to thank my parents for their love and support which allowed me to pursue my degree. A big thank you goes to my brother, Michael, who saved me from many headaches by helping me with the diagnm! 1 also want to thank my friends, both at SRES and outside of school, for their encouragement over the past two years. Their suppon is greatly appreciated.

Finally, 1 would like to acknowledge and thank the customers, employees, managers, and food suppliers for participating in my survey and for being so generous wi th their time. Their kindness made the completion of this thesis possible. 1 - INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION Concem about the state of the natural envuonment has grown over the past decades as more and more problems have manifested. Many of the problems that are threatening the environment are a direct result of the lifestyle choices of North Americans. One part of these lifestyles that has negative environmental consequences is the use and disposal of packaging. Packaging provides many important functions and plays a major role in today's convenience-driven society. However, the actual usage component of that role is short- lived because 90% of packaging is disposed of immediately afier use, despite the fact that much packaging is durable enough to last for many years. Problems related to waste disposa1 and the loss of resources are consequences of current packaging practices. There has been increasing recognition that improved management of packaging is needed. Most of the efforts and literature have concentrated on the recycling of packaging so that less ends up in landfills. Little has been done or written on reducing the need for packaging through changes in retail practices and consumer behaviour.

1.2 A REUSABLE CONTAINER AND BULK DISPENSER SYSTEM A potential solution for some of the problems associated with current packaging practices is a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system in supermarkets. In this system, customers would obtain products in reusable containers fiom either bulk product dispensers or over the counter. In the fint case, customers either retum a container to the supermarket and refill it with the product which it onginally contained from a bulk product dispenser with a nozzle, or use an all-purpose container to obtain product from dispensen typical of existing bulk sections. For exarnple, the customer could take back an empty ketchup bottle and fil1 it with ketchup from a bulk dispenser or the customer could use a srnaIl plastic container to get spices f?om the bulk section. in the over-the-counter case, customen would bnng a container to a full service counter (e.g. the bakery) and ask the employees to fiIl it with product (e.g. cookies). Benefits of a reusable container system would include a significant reduction in both the amount of packaging produced and the arnount disposed of in landfills.

1.3 HYPOTHESIS This thesis seeks to test the following hypothesis: Iwlementin~a reirsable co~zrni~lerami bdk orodtrct dis~ensersvstem in sirpermarkers is feasible. This hypothesis will be accepted if no major banieis are identified that would prevent the system from being implernented and if there are positive indicaton that the system would work. Testing the hypothesis is achieved through a multi-step study involving three different supemarkets in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The three supermarkets chosen, Sobeys, IGA, and Atlantic Superstore, are located in three different socioeconomic areas (Royal LePage 2000) to allow for a representative sarnpling of grocery stores and customers in peninsular Halifax. The fint stage is to identiQ products that could potentially be offered in a reusable container system. The next step is to detemine if there are any health regdations that would prevent a reusable container system from operating. Following these two steps are the interview stages, in which key decision makers in the food supply chain are çurveyed using questions designed to investigate the feasibility of the system. Custorners are interviewed to determine if they would be willing to use the system. Employees are interviewed to determine if the system is feasible fiom their perspective and if they would be willing to operate it. Interviews are conducted with the supermarket managers to determine if the system is feasible from their perspective and to obtain insight into the current system of operations. Ail three of these interview stages are conducted at each of the three supenarkets. Finally, interviews are conducted with a sample of local and national food suppliers to obtain their opinion of a reusable container systern. Figure 1 : Study segments

products

examination of health regulations

1 smeys 1 1 surveys 1 1 sweys 1 1 surveys 1

The purpose of this study is tn obtain an overall picture of the feasibility of the system, not to investigate one aspect of a reusable container and bulk dispenser system in dep th. 1f the system is determined by this study to be feasible, further research would be required before the system could be implemented.

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THESIS Following this introductory chapter is the literature review. The purpose of the literature review chapter is to provide background information that is relevant to the implementation of a reusable container system. Although little is written on anything that resembles the proposed system, there is relevant literature that needs to be explored. An examination of what is written about packaging, consumer behaviour, and the greening of businesses helps provide the justification for pursuing a reusable container system. The third chapter, the methodology, describes the methods used in the study to test the hypothesis. The methodologies used for the main segments of study - that is, the selection of products for the system, the examination of health regulations, and the interviews with customers, employees, managers, and supplies - are explained. The results obtained in the product selection process, examination of health regulaiions, and interviews with customers, employees, managers, and supplien are presented in the fourth chapter. For each of the interview segments, the results from each of the interview questions are presented separately and in the order in which the questions were asked. The fiRh chapter discusses these results. The discussion focuses on the implications of the results for the reusable container system by identifjmg potential bamers and opportunities. The responses from the specific questions on the feasibility of the system are discussed in fiirther detail. A conclusion and recomrnendation chapter sumrnarizes the thesis. This chapter presents the main conclusions and provides recommendations for a reusable container system. Appendices provide supplementary materials and data, including the letter of consent forms required for the interviews, the list of questions asked in the interviews, and iabular presentations of the data collected From the interviews. 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the literature review is to place this study in context and provide the justification for it. The literature review is divided into three main sections: the first on packaging, the second on consumer behaviour, and the third on the "geening" of companies. The chapter begins with an overview of packaging, its history, and its fùnctions. This is followed by subsections on the problerns caused by packaging, trends and issues in the packaging industry, and attempts at management of packaging. Existing information on reusable containers and bulk product dispensen is also discussed. Consumer behaviour is then examined, beginning with historical trends, followed by current consumer behaviour, and concluding with environmental consumer behaviour. The emphasis in this section is on consumer behaviour in relation to supemarkets. The final section, a review of the "greening" of businesses, examines the opportunities, bamers, and processes involved in reducing a company's environmental impact.

2.2. PACKAGING 2.2.1 Overview Packaging is defined in Canada's National Packaging Protocol as:

a material or item that is used to protect, contain, or transport a comrnodity or product. A package can also be a material or item that is physicaily attached to a product or its container for the purpose of marketing the product or communicating information about the product (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment 1990, 1).

Packaging can be said to represent "both the ease and the wastefulness of modem consumer society" (Rousakis and Weintraub 1994,950) because of its current role as a short-lived convenience item. Although it serves a variety of fùnctions, packaging itself is rarely consumed or used by consumers (Janowitz 1993). Instead, 90% of al1 packaging is disposed of, mostly immediaiely after use (Rousakis and Weintraub 1994). Estimates of packaging's contribution to municipal solid waste range f?om 30% to 35% (Stilwell et al. 1991; Stana 1994). Most studies citing these figures are fmm the laie 1980s and early 1990s, so the contribution of packaging to the waste Stream may now be somewhat reduced in response to pmgrarns designed to decrease the amount of packaging go ing to landfills. In the late 1980s Canadians consumed approximately one ton of packaging per family per year, for a total of 6.6 million tomes. In 1988 5.7 million tomes of this were disposed of in landfills, costing taxpayers an estimated $100 million (Squires 199 1). A variety of materials is used in packaging. Robertson (1991) cites a 1985 study ihat divides packaging in Canada into the following categories: 18.5% comgated cardboard, 16% metal cans, 14% folding and setup boxes, 9% glass, 7% plastics, and the remainder a variety of materials. One US study found the contribution by material to be 17.7% paper, 24.5% glass, 14.5% plastics, 6.5% steel, 4.5% wood, and 2.3% aluminum (Stilwell et al. 1991); another found the breakdown to be 32.5% paperboard, 18.1% plastic, 1 7.2% paper, 15.8% metal, 7% glass, and 9.4% other (Rzepecki 1991). According to the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1990, packaging comprised 29.2% by weight and 32.7% by volume of the solid waste Stream, and the breakdown by tord contribution to the waste Stream was as follows: packuging materid: 96 b-v weight % by volume alumi~um 0.5 1.4 glas 5.7 1.6 steel 1.4 1.9 paper & paperboard 12.7 13.1 plastic 4.1 10.0 wood 4.6 4.5 miscellaneous 0.1 O. 1 (PPEC 1994). Sixty-one percent of packaging industry players surveyed in 1997 believed that plastic i s the most effective pac kaging material available (Ferrante 1997b). The largest component of the plastics market is packaging (Rennie and MacLean 1989; MacMillan & Associates/Walsh Worden Lee Business Consultants 1998). One third of al1 plastic waste in Nova Scotia is packaging, equalling 26,383 tonnes (MacMillan & AssociateslWalsh Worden Lee Business Consultants 1998). Plastics have both advantages and disadvantages compared to other types of packaging; for example, energy and water are conserved. but greenhouse gases are released (Stilwell el al. 1991). The lightweight. durable. and pliable nature of plastic means that its popularity is rising as a packaging material (MacMillan & Associates/Walsh Worden Lee Business Consultants 1998). Plastics can deliver more with less; 0.25 Ib. of plastic will hold the same arnount of liquid as 4.3 Ib. of glass (McGuire 1997). Plastics can be crushed flat in landfills and, according to Rathje (1989). do not release toxic chernicals into the environment when landfilled. In ccntrast to paper. plastics consume less energy in their production. As part of the overall picture. plastics account for less than 2% - and plastic packaging on1 y 0.5% - of oil and gas usage in the US (Selke 1990). However. these energy sources are non-renewable and are expected to tun out in the next century (Sherman 1989). Packaging is used in a variety of ways. The top ten uses, according to Packaging magazine, are: single-serve packaging 15.6% rnicrowavable pac kaging 13.4% tamper-eviden t pac kaging 13.1% vacuum packaging 13.3% multi paks 13% certified vendors 10.3% high-banier 10.3% CAPMAP* 8.1% aseptics 7.8% plastic squeeze bottles 6.7% (Anonymous L 98%). *controlled atmosphere packaging/modified atmosphere packaging The package is only part of a larger system that includes raw matenal extraction, processing, manufacture. the package filling operation, distribution, retail display, and disposal (Selke 1990; Janowitz 1993). The system involves both the supply side, which includes those involved in the steps to make a package, and the demand side, which includes the users of packaging. One analysis of the structure of the packaging industry is as foliows: raw matenals suppiiers materials processors converters packers distributors retailers consumers waste management sector (Stilwell et of. 1991, 35). There are various inputs and outputs at each level of this structure. One estimate of the value of the Amencan packaging matenal and container industry in 2000 is %US 80 billion (Rzepecki 1991). With a typical grocery store offerhg approximately 10,000 products (Mogelonsky 1999, it is not surpnsing that about 60% of al1 packaging annually is for the package- intensive food and beverage industries, the largest users of packaging (Robertson 1991 ; Stilwell et al. 1991; Filbee 1992). A US study found that Americans spent $32.3 billion on food packaging in 1988 (Marinelli 1989). in addition to the packaging in which products are sold, it is estimated by The Pollution Probe Foundation (1989) that each week Canadians take home 55 million plastic bags from grocery stores, with most eventually ending up in landfills. As a result of marketing, consumer tastes, low cost of energy, and low cost of materials, packaging is more prevalent in Noah Arnenca than elsewhere (Robertson 199 1). Different shopping patterns in Europe and Japan, where people shop much more frequently for fresh foods and often at local markets, translate into different needs for food packaging (Stilwell et al. 1991). Packaging is clearly a large part of North Arnerican life. Although consumers now are accustomed to its ovenvhehing presence, packaging did not always play such a dominant role.

2.2.2 History Packaging has existed in some form since the time of the earliest human beings. Pre-his tonc packaging was primitive, made of naturally occurring materials, and resulted in little or no waste. As technology progressed, packaging becarne more complex. Glass bottles appeared as early as 1550 B.C.; metal containers date to around 1700 A.D.; paperboard use began in the late 1800s; and plastics were introduced in the first half of the 20" century (Rzepecki 199 1). The most dramatic changes in packaging occurred around World War II. Until that time, packaging was largely designed for a long and useful life (Alexander and Asselin 1972). Since the 1930s and especially since World War II, Western society has increasingly sought convenience. This, along with the rise in affluence (Figenshau 1993), a population explosion, and a new corporate philosophy that emphasized cleanliness, efficiency, and functionality (Bender 1975), resulted in an increase in more products which required packaging, especially disposable packaging (Alexander and Asselin 1972). Improvements in transportation systems meant products were being shipped long distances, resulting in the need for packaging to protect goods over distance and time (Stilwell et al. 1991). Social changes gave rise to the need for convenience food with individual seMngs and disposable containers. nie youth culture of the 1960s was the target of many new types of packaging (Bender 1975). The oil crisis of the 1970s led to a reduction in packaging; for economic reasons people began buying in bulk and manufacturers produced packages that used less materials. in the 1980s one of the trends was the attempt to extend the shelf life of products (Stilwell et ai. 1991). Packaging has acquired a bad reputation that some believe to bs unjustly deserved. According to James Scott, the director of packaging at Nabisco Biscuit Company, packaging waste increased only 6% f?om 1970 to 1990, while the population increased by 23% during that same time period (LeMaire 1994b). As well, the freshness and safety of packaged products have greatly improved in the post-W.W.II penod (Stilwell et al. 199 1).

2.2.3 Functions Packaging provides many important functions which generally can be classified into the prirnary categones of protection, communication, and convenience (Selke 1990). The most common function identified, and probably the most critical, is the protection of' the product (Manh 1991; Robertson 1991). This must be provided throughout al1 stages of the distribution system (Rzepecki 199 1; Stana 1994). Post- purchase protection must also be considered (Rzepecki 199 1). The product must be protected from chemical influences like gases, moisture, light, or microorganisms. Among other things, this chemical protection helps prevent diseiw (Marsh 1991; Ferris et al. 1994). Physical darnage to the product is also prevented or reduced by packaging (Selke 1990; Manh 199 1 ; Stana 1994). The protection provided allows products to travel long distances without losing value (Rousakis and Weintraub 1994). Thefi prevention is partially accomplished through the use of packaging (Rzepecki 1991). Another category of protection is the guarding against tampering by hurnans (Marsh 1991). With regard to communication, one of the functions is to provide information, such as on nutrition, ingredients, cooking instructions, wamings, and product weight (Selke 1990; Marsh 1991; CCME l992b; Stana 1994). This is often done to satisQ legal requirements (Marsh 199 1) and, in some cases, language requirements (CCME 1992b). Marketing, another communication function, is a major part of packaging. In fact, packaging is seen by many as being a partner with its product (Anonymous 1994a). William H. LeMaire, publisher of the Packaging Strategies newsletter, States that "lncreasingly, packaging is recognized as a multi-functional tool by which to achieve a special and cornpetitive edge in a world of marginally distinctive new product entries" (LeMaire 1994% 82). Shapes and colours of packaging are part of a strategy to entice more buying of the product (Chamberlain 1999). Product sales are related to how much shelf space it occupies (Selke 1990). Although advertising by other methods is important, the package is expected to sel1 the product and is a major factor in impulse buying (Rzepecki 1991). Even after the product has left the store, the visibility of the brand name in the home cm create customer loyalty (Landor 1966). Packaging provides convenience in two ways. Convenience for the customer is a major function of rnuch packaging. Changing social trends in the past half-century have translated into a demand for products of convenience. Between L 972 and 1987 there was a 73% increase in single-parent households and a 6 1% increase in the nurnber of women in the work force in the United States (Stana 1994). This meant there was less time for meal preparation and, therefore, a greater need for meals that required little or no time to prepare. The second convenience function relates to the movement of food (Fems et al. 1994). Packaging makes product handling easier for shipping, storage, and display (Thommes 199 1 ). Although packaging creztes a lot of visible waste, it does play an important role in waste reduction. Therefore, wase reduction could be seen as a secondary function. In some cases underpackaging can be as negative as overpackaging (Erickson 1989b; Stilwell et al. 1 99 1). One study by William Rathje found that packaged foods result in 1%-5% waste while fiesh foods resuit in 40%-50% waste (Marsh 1991; Stilwell 1991; Rathje and Murphy 1992; Stana 1994). For example, while a one-pound bag of frozen corn kemels yields only 0.14 ounce of waste, three or four ean of fiesh corn produce 1.5 pounds of waste (Ashton and Erickson 1989). Processed, packaged foods leave agncultural by-products and food production wastes at the processing plants, allowing the wastes to be used in a productive way (e.g. animal feed, manure) instead of being dumped in IandfiIls (Olson and Raphael 1979; Fems et al. 1994). It should be noted that these studies do not appear to take composting into account. Olson and Raphael(1979) point out that while the days when milk or beer was brought from the store in reusable containers certainly did not produce the amount of packaging waste that results today, the products did not stay as fiesh as long either. Another example is that margarine that has been over wrapped retains flavour, colour, and aroma bener than margarine wrapped with a single layer of foi1 wrapping (MacLean Hunter Research Bureau 1986). While packaging serves a variety of important functions, the "improvement" to our Iifestyles is offset by a nurnber of very senous problems.

2.2.4 Problems Although a single package may not be given much thought because it appean hmless, collectivel y packaging causes major problems. The most obvious problem is disposal. As of 1994,90% of al1 packaging is disposed of, most immediately aAer use (Rousakis and Weintraub 1994). When packaging is disposed of in landfills natural resources are lost, valuable land is consumed, and pollutants are released (CCME 1992a). Packaging also contributes to litter (Squires 1991). Disposed packaging can cause problems for wildlife; some environmentalists estimate that the ingestion of or entanglement in debris results in the death of as many as 1,000,000 seabirds and 100,000 manne mammals every year (Marinelli 1989). Besides disposal, there are other problems associated with packaging. In fact, the Buy Recycled Campaign (1994) estimates that the extracting and refining to rnake packaging materials has impacts that are 150 times more severe than the impacts of disposal. With every package made, natural resources are depleted. Cheniicals used in the production may be toxic, causing air and water pollution and contributing to the greenhouse effect and ozone layer depletion (MarineIli 1989; Selke 1990). There are many costs associated with packaging that are not included in the price of the product. For exarnple, the mie costs of waste disposa1 include the costs of administration, well monitoring, inspectors, equipment, degradation of the land used for the land fill, and health related expenses (Clumpner and Dehn 199 1; Adarnson no date). Buyers of disposable packaging might find the products too expensive if the true costs of disposa1 were reflected in the pice (Reruiie and MacLean 1989; Duming 1992). Dirnitrova (1 987, 140) shows the costs associated with distribution alone as follows: TDC=TC+FC+CC+IC+HC+PC+MC where TDC = total distribution costs TC = transport costs

FC = facilities costs (depots, warehouses, etc.) CC = communications costs (order processing, invoicing) IC = inventory costs HC = materials handling costs PC = protective packaging costs MC = distribution management costs LeMaire (1991) predicts that technology will solve the problems of packiiging waste, while Irvine (1989) warns about looking for a magical technological solution. Whether or not easy technological solutions will appear, the problems need to be addressed. These problems are not currently being adequately addressed by the stakeholders in the supply chain.

2.2.5 Trends and issues There are varying opinions about what are the most important issues in packaging. Packaging disposability was listed by one industry insider as the issue that dominated discussions with food companies (LeMaire 1989). However, in this sarne issue of Food E~igheeringan article summarizing a 1989 packaged food conference reported that demographic changes, acceptance of the microwave oven, and trends in food processing technology would create new categories of food with emphasis on convenience (Anonyrnous l989b). In 1992 a roundtable discussion involving seven packaging industry executives identified several trends predicted for the industry. Environmental considerations were seen as a driving force in the packaging world. The importance of marketing in the role of packaging was also mentioned, due in part to the emergence of the point-of-sale (Le. the cash register and the surroundhg area) as being increasingly critical (Russell 1993a). Another survey by Food Engineering of 500 panel memben from al1 sectors of the food industry found that, while environmental concerns were considered very important, product safety was the number one issue. In fact, environrnental concerns were fifth, preceded b y safety, product shelf li fe, new labelling legislation, and consumer convenience (Russell 1993b). A survey of customers in 1996 found that 95% of customers felt that the preservation of flavour and taste was the most important function of packaging. Receiving value for their money and ensuring the tamper resistance of the package were the next most important issues. While one-quarter of the consumers stated that they would not buy products because of over-packaging or non-recyclability, this was down fiom one-third in 1992. Martin Pugh, global business manager of food and specialty packaging at Dow Plastic, points to ease of opening, peaVseal packaging, and tamper evidence as the important issues dnving packaging innovation. Environmental issues were still important, but only if they were cost effective (Ferrante 1997a). Eighty percent of the panel memben in a survey by Food Ertgitteeriirg felt that consumer convenience would be very important when making packaging decisions during the two years following the survey, while only 50% believed that environmental issues would play a key role (Ferrante 1997b). It is worthy to note that a 1993 technical textbook on packaging, Robertson's Food Packuging: Principles arid Practice, makes no reference to environmental issues. While environrnental problems are acknowledged by many stakeholders, they do not appear to be the dnving force in the packaging industry.

2.2.6 Management The management of the environmental impacts of packaging generally involves the concept of waste reduction. Based on its own expenence, the Xerox Corporation ( 1992) lists key elements to a waste reduction program, including enthusiastic and knowledgeable program leaders and teams, enthusiastic and visible management support, effective employee education, public and communication programs, and reliable, ongoing prograrn management. In particular, employee empowerment, motivation, and education are identified as crucial to the success of a waste management prograrn (Xerox 1992). Similarly, the Buy Recycled Campaign (1994) lists cornrnitted management, empowered employee teams, and education as the three qualities needed for a successfu1 waste reduction program. Education prograrns should strive to answer the questions of why reducing waste is important, what the benefits are, what waste is involved, how the waste can be reduced, if reducing waste is easy, and how the program will continue once it has been implemented (Buy Recycled Campaign 1994). An educational component in schools on recycling and a television segment on environmental shopping proved to be two successful approaches in an educational program aimed at waste reduction and recycling in Pemsylvania (Murphy 1991). One example of an effort to manage the environmental impacts of packaging is Germany's Ordinance on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste, which came into effect in 1993. Under this ordinance the party which places the packaging in commerce is responsible for dealing with the packaging waste. The manufacturers must take back al1 of their packaging waste and pay the recycling costs for packaging that is not eliminated or reused (Schneeweiss 1996). The collection of the packaging to be recycled is done by a joint govemment/private agency called the Duales System Deutschland. To be collected, packages mut be identified by a green dot, signifjmg that a recycling company has guaranteed that the packaging will be recycled. Some of the results of this law include the increased sale of detergents sold as concentrates, the removal of the toothpaste box, and the introduction of milk dispensers in some stores (Rousakis and Weintraub 1994). As well, the Tuppenvare company is encouraging customers to take their own containers to shops to be filled (Redd 1992). While this law has been praised, there are criticisms as well. One argument is that the fint three priorities of avoiding, reducing, and reusing waste have not been encouraged strongly enough (Redd 1992). Some contend that the green dot may lead customen to believe that the package has no environmental impacts (Rousakis and Weintraub 1994). In Canada, the National Packaging Protocol was implemented in 1992 and called for a 50% reduction of packaging sent for disposa1 by the year 2000, based on the 1988 base level. This policy has been successful. By 1996 a 5 1.2% reduction had been achieved, with the amount of packaging sent to landfills dropping fiom 5.41 million tonnes in 1988 to 2.64 million tonnes in 1996 (Katz 1998c; CCME 1998). This has been partially accomplished through the light-weighting of packages, a decrease in the amount of new packaging used, a slight increase in reuse, and a substantial increase in recycling. Other efforts have been made at the national, provinciailstate, and local levels using a number of different approaches. In 1992, Austria banned al1 non-recyclable packaging. In 1989, Minneapolis banned plastic food packaging that cannot be retumed, degraded, or recycled (Robertson 1991), althocgh this policy has not been enforced (Haines 1999). In 1989 the city of Berkeley, Califomia, banned al1 take-out and fast-food Styrofoarn blown with CFCs (Levy 2000). Also in Califomia, an agreement was reached in 1993 with the Recording Industry Association of Arnenca to eliminate the boxes surrounding the CD case and instead use only a thin layer of shrinkwrap. This eliminated 25 million pounds of packaging per year that would have to be landfilled (Buy Recycled Campaign 1994). One of the problems in managing packaging is dealing with the different levels of government. For exarnple, municipal govemments are generally responsible for solid waste management, yet they need al1 levels of govenunent and society to participate in working towards reducing waste (The Pollution Probe Foundation 1989; Griffiths Muec ke Associates/Porter Dillon Ltd. IWI). Municipalities cm take progressive actions, however, as evidenced by the above-cited examples of Minneapolis and Berkeley. Another problem is that large-scale packaging reduction replations are potentially complicated from a legal perspective (The Pollution Probe Foundation 1989). When attempting to manage the environmental impacts of packaging, it is important that efforts to reduce the environmenial impacts at one stage of the life cycle of a product do not cause increased damage at another (Keoleian and Menerey 1993). Life cycle assessrnent or analysis (LCA) is a method used to assess the environmental impacts caused by a product throughout its entire life cycle (Stilwell et al. 1991; Andenson et al. 1998). This cradle-to-grave approach assesses inputs and outputs during: raw material acquisition manufacturing, processing and formulation distribution and transportation use/reuse/maintenance recycling waste management (Environment Canada 1998). LCAs have been done in relation to food and packaging. For example, a Dutch study of the environmental impacts of a porcelain cup and saucer versus a polystyrene cup sought to identim the number of times that a porcelain cup and saucer would have to be used in order for their environmental impact to be lower than that of a cup made of polystyrene or paperlcardboard. The study found that the reusable porcelain cup and saucer would have less of an impact on air, energy consuniption, and landfill volume, but more of an impact on water (van Ejik et al. 1992). A variety of management strategies have been implemented to reduce packaging waste. These strategies have different goals and have met with different degrees of success. 2.2.6. (i) Hierarchy of management strategies Not all strategies for managing packaging are perceived as equally effective. While al1 attempts to reduce the environrnental impact of packaging are valuable, some approaches are deemed to be of higher value. For example, the hierarchy described by Canada's National Packaging Protocol, in order fkom the rnost desirable, is:

1. No packaging 2. Minimal packaging 3. Reusable packaging

4. Recyclable packaging and packaging containing recyclable material (CCME 1992~). The Source Reduction Task Force of the Coalition of Northeastern Govemors (CONEG) in the US offers an almost identical hierarchy, with the exception of the third level which they expand to consumable, retumable or refillable/reusable packaging (Stilwell et al. 199 1 ; Hi~chsand Harrison 1995). The hierarchy is often expressed in another way: reduce, reuse. recycle. Al1 four of the management strategies listed above contribute to the reduction of waste in some way. However, "waste reduction" in rnany contexts is ofien thought of more as source reduction, which is equivalent to the first two levels of the National Packaging Protocol hierarchy. The US EPA's 1975 definition of waste reduction is the "prevention of waste at its source, either by redesigning products or by otherwise changing societal patterns of consurnption or waste generation" (Selke 1990,61). Xerox (1992, 5) defines source reduction as "any action that prevents waste fiom occming in the first place". The reduction component of a waste management strategy is often difficult to measure in tems of its impact (Griffiths Muecke Associates/Porter Dillon Ltd. 199 1), but it is probably the most effective. The Canadian Code of Preferred Packaging Practices. developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME),offers strategies for the reduction of packaging, including the elimination of packaging or packaging components; lowering material area to volume ratios; using alternative materials or technologies; redesigning products so that less packaging is needed; using refills; reusing package parts; light-weighting of packaging; developing alternative distribution systems; and eliminating toxic materials in packaging (CCME 19921). Persuading people to moderate their needs and desires could also be added to this Iist (Setke 1990). Eliminating packaging altogether is the most direct way to reduce waste. An example of a simple change to reduce the amount of packaging is the elimination of the box surrounding the stand-up plastic toothpaste tube (Anonyrnous 1995). Keoleian and Menerey ( 1993) suggest that products such as screwdnvers, which can be easil y displayed wi thout pac kaping, should be shipped and sold unpackaged. While packaging reduction is defïnitely desirable in most cases. decision-rnaken must ensure that the needs of a particular activity, such as keeping food from spoiling, are met (Laughlin and Varangu 199 1). The Institute of Food Technologists makes several recommendntions to reduce wastes, such as encouraging source reduction, but insists that "safety, quality, and nutrition remain the primary requisites for food packaging" (Stilwell et al. 1991, 163). "Light-weighting" has been a strategy within the industry for a long time, prompted not only by environmental concems but also cost reduction concerns. Waste minimization, another strategy, cm be achieved by reusing a package for another purpose, for example the jelly and peanut butter jars of the 1950s that were used afterwards as glasses or measuring cups. Extending the lifetirne of a package can promote multiple use and reduce the total materials used (Stilwell et al. 1991). However, this strategy will only be successful if the package is actually used again instead of discarded. Another way of thinking about source reduction is "precycling", which means "making environmentally sound purchasing decisions at the store" (Anonymous no date, 437). This requires more thinking than recycling, which is a physical act. Exarnples of precycling are buying in bulk, refusing to buy disposables, and selecting products carefull y. If reduction is not possible, the Canadian Council of Ministen of the Environment (CCME) offen the following strategies for reuse, the next mosi desirable option in the hierarchy:

-0pportunities for reuse will be evaluated next, making sure that any reuse application does have a measunble effect on waste diversion without incumng a net increase in economic costs, environmental costs and wi thout compromising the health and safety of consumers. -Pnonty will be given to using packages or packaging cornponents which are reusable for their original purpose without remanufacturing. For this type of reuse to be viable. it is necessary to have suitable collection, retum and reuse programs in place. -If primary reuse is not practical, detennine whether packages or package cornponents can be safely reused or refilled by the consumer (CCME 1992a, 7-8).

Recycling, which is at the bottom of the hierarchy, is a management strategy which has been used often and has attracted much attention. While recycling definitely helps Save resources, some worry that it gives a false sense of security that the garbage problem is solved (Sherman 1989; Robertson lY9 1). Degndability, which is generally considered to be on the same hierarchical level as recycling, also has many critics. The oft-cited example of William Rathje finding perfectly good 25-year old newspapers and food products under the layers of a landfill (Sherman 1989; MarineIli 1989; Rathje and Murphy 1992) indicates that this management option may not be effective. The boundary lines arnong "reduce, reuse, recycle" are not always clearly drawn. For example, it can be argued that by reusing packaging, the amount of waste will be reduced. However, management strategies cm usually be categorized based on the approach that is taken. 2.2.7 Reusable/refillable containers and bulk dispensing The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN) defines reusable packaging as "a container which is designed to be used more than once by a filler for the sarne purpose" (INCPEN no date). Although refillableslreusables are usually given their own category, refillingheusing is classified by one author as source reduction because it is part of the effort to prevent the generation of solid waste (Anonymous 1994b, 1). Compared to the amount written on recyclables (Rennie and MacLean 1989), there is little on refillables and reusables. An article by Orr in 1976 was one of the earliest papers. This was followed by a study by Goen et al. in 1977. It was not until the late 1 980s and the early 1990s that more articles appeared. The 19' century is cited by a number of authors as the era of greatest success with reusable packaging (Marinelli 1990; Meade 1990). Decorated tin cans were brought to the market to be refilled with a range of goods from crackers to tea (Marinelli 1990). Reusing was less complicaied because lids were standardized and there fore could be mixed and matched (Figenshau 1993). Until the 1950s, it was not uncommon for refillable bottles to rnake 30 trips each (Rennie and MacLean 1989). Glass bottles, although used less fiequently today, were once a major packaging technique. The cost required to make refillable bottles thicker and stronger led to the decline in their popularity, although the energy swings by using refillable bottles and the reduction in carbon dioxide released might again lead to a nse in the use of refillable glas bottles (Stilwell et al. 1991). The justification for using reusable/refillable containers is simple. As The Ca~iadianGreen Consumer Guide pragmatically States:

Pounng sharnpoo or ice cream into your shopping bag is obviously a silly notion. But it is equally silly to take home a different container every time you buy one of these products. It makes no sense to go to the time and expense - and resource use - to make a plastic shampoo bottle that could be used for years and have it thrown out in days or weeks (The Pollution Probe Foundation 1989, 108). David Saphire points out that "[flor every bonle that's filled 20 times, there are 19 other bottles that need not be made and need not be recycled or disposed of' (Anonymous 1994b, 1). This results in a reduction in the use of natural resources, energy consumption, water pollution, air pollution, and use of water (Goen et al. 1977; Anonymous 1994b). Xerox (1992) claims that by reusing the original product virtually 100% of the energy, pollution, and materials required to make them in the first place is saved and that these savings multiply with use. In Sweden, where there has been a return to refillables, it is estimated that there is a 90% reduction in the raw materials needed (Rennie and MacLean 1989). Although recycling is better than sending a package to a landfiIl, reusing a container is preferred. As Figenshau (1993,24) States, "why break a container down and send it through an energy-intensive process of melting, purifjmg and re-molding when the same container could simply be washed and re-used?". While some may argue that the water needed to wash refillables causes an environmental impact, Saphire claims that it is minimal compared to the water used in making new single-use bonles. Refilling also has an economic advantage over recycling because of the expenses involved in handling and reprocessing (Anonymous 1994b). According to an EPA study, the savings gained by refilling is $0.60 to $2.00 for each case of beer and 3.5 to 5 cents per container of son drinks (Figenshau 1993). With each trip made by a refillable, it becomes more and more profitable (MCPENno date). Promoting the use of refillable bonles can be accomplished in several ways, such as laws requiring the use of standardized refillable bottles; broad materials policies that encourage the use of reusable materials and goods; government procurement policies that require or give preference to refillables; financial incentives for companies that switch from single-use containers to refillable ones; and two-tiered quantity-based user fees for collection ofrecyclable and non-recyclable solid waste, giving consumers an incentive to use refillables (Anonymous 1994b). A deposit system legislated by the government, descnbed in a 1976 article by Orr, would encourage customea to use refillables. For the refillable container system to work, Orr concludes that the containers must be standardized and coded according to type, and constnicted so that they are resistant to contarninants. A reusables basket initially acquired by the customer would collect the empty reusables and be retumed to the store regularly. In Orr's system, the containers are not refilled by the customer, but instead brought back to the Company to be cleaned and filled again. Once customen began to acquire containers of considerable economic value, market forces would encourage container recovery. Orr predicted that there would also be market incentive for a container recovery industry. One benefit of the standardization of On's system is that product differentiation for the customer would become clearer. The system proposed by Goen et al. (1977) also calls for standardized containers. They looked at the feasibility of a reusable container system using standardized, homogeneous food containers that are interchangeable among different types of products and manufacturen. The containers would be collected and returned to packagers. The two alternatives proposed for this system are a deposit system in which the customers retum the containers to the stores and a non-deposit system in which containers are collected from the consumen' homes. Some types of reusable packaging systems will require collection and retum infrastructure; procedures for inspeciing items for defects or contamination; repair, cleaning, and refurbishing capabilities; and storage and handling systems (Keoleian and Menerey 1993). For example, one of the reusable container systems proposed by Goen et al. (1 977) would involve collecting containers fiom people's homes, storing the containers in collection centres, and transporting the containers from the storage areas to the food processon to be used again. Transporting containers back to the food processors will comprise a significant proportion of the costs, although overall there would be potential cost advantages over disposable containers. Goen et al. (1977) point out problems that must be solved before the adoption of a reusable container system. Production lines must be converted to allow for cleaning, inspecting, and refilling operations; the integrity of closures and containers must be maintained to protect product safety; the system must be acceptable to industry and consumen in terms of cost; and the system must be adopted industry-wide because individual processors could not independently implement a system. In terms of product safety, there are two main areas to be concemed with. First, depending on the type of product (i.e. dry, fiozen, high acid, low acid), the container will need to be effective in protecting against oxidation, loss of aromatics, physical contamination, chernical darnage, freezer bum, and spoilage. Second, manufacturers will not have control over what people store in the containers before they are collected; therefore, the cleaning process will have to be effective in removing any residues as well as detecting damage to the container caused by toxic materials (e.g. paint, household cleaners) (Goen et al. 1977). Most efforts at refilling have taken place within the beverage sector. Canada has a high rate of refillable use in the beverage sector (e.g. 82% of beer sales), especially in cornparison io the United States where only 5% to 7% of beer and sofl drink containers are refillable. Denmark is the most successful country for refillables; 99% to 100% of beverage containers are refilled there (Durning 1992; Figenshau 1993; Anonymous 1994b). This high rate is helped by a law which requires containers to be standardized (Figenshau 1993). For more than a hundred years in Japan a variety of liquid products have been sold in a standardized 1,800 cubic cm glass bottle called the Isshobin that cm be retumed to any retailer (Stilwell et al. 1991). Individual companies have also made efforts to introduce reusable containers for beverages. Lochmead Dairy in Oregon distributes 300,000 reusable high density plastic bottles per year, of which only 4000 are damaged or lost. Substantial savings result from the use of these bottles, which can make up to 100 trips. A dairy in Califomia uses glass bottles which can withstand 30 trips on average. Genesis Juice in Oregon fills whatever used bottles are brought to them (Figenshau 1993). Sonoco uses a reusable drum that does not need containers or pallets to ship its liquid and fiozen hitjuices overseas. These drums are cleaned and reused afier they deliver the product to its destination (Newton and Quim 1998). Although not as cornmon as in the beverage sector, some food companies have refillable container programs. Sundance Natural Foods, another Oregon business, offers its customers cleaned reused jars to be filled with products fiom bulk containers. Toni's Yogurt of Switzerland sells its product in reused high density polyethylene (HDPE)plastic containers that are collected on racks outside the stores (Figenshau 1993). There are a few references to direct dispensing in the literature. Mackenzie (1990) believes that an increased desire for Ereshness, choice, flexibility, and environmental protection could lead to direct dispensing. The Pollution Probe Foundation (1989) feels that it is a simple, sensible step for customers to start taking containers to bulk bins for refills. Bulk food sections already exist in stores and offer a wide range ofproducts fiom beans, flour, peanut butter, and oil to shampoos and soaps (Broydo 1996). Products can be shipped in bulk in a number ofways, including shipping in large drums and the delivery of sofi drink syrup into restaurant tanks or fountains (Buy Recycled Carnpaign 1994). One product, called the Multi-Bulk@, cm hold up to 5,000 gallons of liquid product (Pszczola 1996). A Company in the United States, Spiroflow-Orthos Systems, Inc., has designed a bulk bag discharger which removes any product from a bulk bag without cross contamination (Anonymous 1998.). Model (1997) suggests mason jars, ziplock bags, plastic stonge containers, and any type of capped or sealed product as appropriate reusable containers for bulk foods. Some products such as flour, nce, oils, and nut butters must be stored in airtight containers, while othen such as spices and dned vegetables only need to be kept dry (Model 1997). A CO2-richenvironment is needed for baked foods to stop yeast and mold growth (Katz 1998b). In addition to the environmental benefits of selling in bulk, there are other benefits, including economic ones. For example, buying spices in bulk saves 15%-45% on average, and buying specialty grains in bulk can Save 30% (Model 1997). As stores which have bulk items also supply disposable packages for customers to transport the good (Model 1997), they should welcome reusable containers as this would cut down on the expense of supplying plastic bags and containers. Infrastructure needs can also be reduced by bulk systems because the control for the reuse of packaging is passed on to the customer (Keoleian and Menerey 1993). A number of potential problems relating to a reusable container and bulk dispenser system have been discussed. One of the problems with designing a new distribution system for supermarkets is that it is diffïcult for large corporations to change quickly (LeMaire 1989). Sorne stores may conclude that the expense and risk of implemeniing a new system is too great (Anonymous 199 1). There is also the question of whether or not some disposable products have less impacts on the environment than the reusable equivalents and pose lower health risks than reusables (Anonymous 1991). However, this argument was made in the context of disposable diapers, so it may not apply to reusable container systems. One estimate, albeit a biased one perhaps, by representatives of Dutch packagers is that using refillable glass costs ten times as much as recycling. Transport costs and the applying of new labels and tops translate into big environmental costs too (Anonymous 1994~). The INCPEN organization (no date, 1) notes that raw matenals can be minimized and wastes reduced by reusing packaging, but wams that systems must be designed with caution to ensure that "they do not use more energy than they are worth". This group supports the use of refillable container systems where they currently exist but does not see the need to reintroduce them on a large scale. MCPEN cites cost, hygienic reasons, space and sorting requirements, and extra labour as reasons why such systems would not be successful. As well, the organization daims that lack of public interest caused the demise of a system tried by Migros, a supermarket chain in Switzerland. For bulk dispensing in particular, the MCPEN group feels that a high throughput is needed for it to be economical. Others are pessimistic about the prospect of a reusable container and bulk dispenser system. One author states that "the days of bulk food sales in small markets is over" (Marsh 199 1,233). Another feels that it is not realistic to expect consumers to go to efforts such as bringing reusable tins to the store (Meade 1990). Although Marinelli (1989) believes that the refillable container could be "reinvented" and used for hit juices, milk, liquor, and sofi dnnks, she also states that bbalmostno one expects modem American consumers to go back to those days" of bnnging refillable containen to stores (Marinelli l99O,52 1). Safety, hygiene, and attractiveness issues are concerns (Mackenzie 1990). The Tylenol scare in the US and the baby food scare in the UK in the 1980s have heightened the concems about the safety of bulk foods (Robertson 1991). Despite some concems about reusable containers and bulk dispensing, the arguments for using a system which incorporates reusable containers and bulk dispensing are persuasive. While reusable containers are not in widespread use, the technology for their use is definitely available. The lack of use of reusable containers appears to stem not From a lack of technology or an inability to solve problems, but from a reluctance by manu facturers, rnerchants, and consuners.

2.3 CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR Consumer behaviour is defined by Wagner (1997, Il) as "the acquisition, consumption, and disposition of goods, services, time, and ideas by decision-making units". This section will review both historical and current consumer behaviour trends, and in particular examine environmental consumer behaviour.

2.3.1 History Consumen in previous centuries had a small impact on the environment. In the 19"' century, for example, it was common for consumen to bnng their tin cans to the store to be filled by the grocer (Marinelli 1990; Meade 1990). Consumer behaviour changed dramatically following W. W.11. Product design in post-W.W.11 changed from meeting needs to creating desires or wants, and from creating durable products to creating products that were disposable or would become obsolete (Cooper 1997). Although it was not consumers who initially conceived of disposable products, they willingly used these products once they were introduced (Enckson 1989a). From the late 1940s to the early 1970s material consurnption increased by 4%-5% a year, surpassing the population growth rate (Parkinson 1983). The rise of consumerism following W. W.11 resulted in municipal solid waste becoming a major issue for the fint time (Stilwell et al. 1991). The oil crisis of the 1970s resulted in an awareness of the negative aspects of consumerism (Parkinson 1983). However, this awareness has not resulted in significant reductions in consurnption; the Western World, with only 20% of the population, still uses 80% of the world's resources (Hailes 1992). 2.3.2 Current grocery shopping behaviour, trends, and issues A Danish study found that one third of a family of four's total environmental impact was related to the food system. Seventeen percent of Sweden's total energy use is accounted for by the production and consumption of foods. Forty percent of this is in the shopping, storage, and cooking phases (Andersson 1998). One author notes a trend of more hot food and bakery supermarket products becoming "take-out" foods. This requires a special package which closes reliably, allows the food to be visible, and is appropriate as both a serving and holding container (Katz 1997). A European-style method of shopping in which Foods are fiequently bought is also predicted by Katz. Shoppers are becoming health conscious and are demanding to know more about their food. A 1992 survey found that shoppers most commonly ranked a clean, sanitary store as the most important expectation of a supermarket. Younger people aged 18 to 30 look for 24-hour service, an abundance of brands, a wide selection of products, and solid environmental programs (Mogelonsky 1995). With more men and women living alone - in fact, 39% of the US population in 1990 - there has been an increased demand for the often-overpackaged single se~ngs(Sloan 1993). A Packaging magazine survey found that over 15% of unmanied respondents used single serving packages at least three times per week and another 19% used them once or twice per week (Anonyrnous 1989a). Today 57% of wornen work outside the home, increasing the demand for microwavable, prepared, and pre-cut convenience foods (Mogelonsky 1995). The Packaghg survey found that almost 22% of parents used single se~ngcontainers at least three times per week, with another 28% using them once or hKice a week (Anonymous 1gaga). As the nurnber of older shoppers grows, there will be even more demand for convenience foods. Convenience appears to be a driving force in the food delivery system. This need often conflicts with environmental protection.

2.3.3 Environmental consumer behaviour Environmental citizenship can be defined as "the responsibilities each of us has with respect to helping our cornmunities and nation make sound environmental decisions" (NCEDR 1997). A simpler defmition is that enWonmental citizenship is our responsibility to care for the environment. Each person must realize that although they are only one individual, they can make a difference (Environment Canada 1999). Practicing environmental consumer behaviour is one component of environmental citizenship. By shopping environmentally, consumers will b'vote"with their dollars to make retailers more ecologically sound (Smith 1990). Arnong other suggestions, 77ze Cariadian Green Consumer Guide urges "green" consumers to avoid products that "cause significant damage to the environment during manufacture, use, or disposal" or "cause unnecessary waste, either because of overpackaging or because of an unduly short useful life" (The Pollution Probe Foundation 1989, i). The environment was the number one issue for 85% of those polled in a survey of the industrialized world (Carson and Moulden 199 1). The 18-24 age bracket is the most concemed about the environment and the most likely to act on that concem. This concem can be predicted to grow as more and more children are brought up learning about environmental issues (Mogelonsky 1995). Some researchen feel that green behaviour is a characteristic of the affluent, highly educated, and politically liberal (Wagner 1997), while others believe that it cuts across al1 demographic lines (Carson and Moulden 1991). Eighty-three percent of the Canadians surveyed in an Angus Reid poll ranked the environment as very important (Sutherland 1993). Consumers increasingly want to know more about the products they buy and are requesting to know more about the life cycle (Carson and Moulden 1991). Seventy-seven percent of respondents in a US-wide Penn and Scoen, Inc. sweystated that a company's reputation on environmental issues affected their purchase decisions. Only 11% in the poll felt businesses were doing a good job protecting the environment (Williams 1990). Seventy-nine percent of consumers questioned in one swey think that some products use too much packaging. The foods considered to be the most overpackaged are, in descending order, cereal, microwave/shelf stable foods, fiozen foods, over-the-counter drugs and vitarnins, snacks, meats, and cookies/crackers (Sloan 1993). Half of the shoppers in a Food Marketing Institute survey stated they were willing to switch to a supermarket that promoted environmentally fXendly products and packaging (Stilwell et al. 199 1). A 1990 swey concluded that 70% of North Arnericans had rejected a product or switched brands in the past year because of environmental concems (Carson and Moulden 199 1). Other studies indicate that consumers are willing to pay more for environmentally brnign products, with results indicating customers would pay a premium of 5% to 15% (Robertson 199 1; Clayton 1993; Sloan 1993; Sutherland 1993). Eighty percent of the Canadians polled in one survey stated they would pay more for "green" products (Filbee 1992). Eighty-nine percent of the respondents in one New York survey stated that they were concemed about the environmental impact of products purchased, and 78% said they were willing to pay more for recyclable or biodegradable packaging (LeMaire 1992). Although customers rnay state their concem for environmental issues, this does not usually translate into environmentally-fnendly actions (Stilwell et al. 1991; Noye 1997; Wagner 1997). According to a R0pedS.C. Johnson & Son survey done in 1992, even though 85% of consumers considered themselves to be environmentalists, only 22% had changed their shopping habits accordingly (Sloan 1993). Evidence from the supermarket suggests that if an "environrnentally fkiendly" product is not convenient and easy to open, the product will not be successful (LeMaire 1992). in economically hard times, pice and quality appear to be the most important considerations (Sloan 1993). Convenience seems to outweigh people's good intentions (Stilwell et of. 1991 ; Sloan 1993). According to one estimate, 75 cents out of every dollar spent on supermarket foods is spent on convenience (Lave et al. 1995). Customers may believe that a major persona1 sacrifice and major costs are required to buy environmentally sound products (Dembkowski 1998). Consumers appear to be more willing to make sacrifices in the post-purchase stage (e.g. recycling) than at the point of purchase (Sloan 1993) because these changes usually only mean minor lifestyle changes (Clayton 1993). Noye (1992) States that the lack of environrnentally-appropriatebehaviour could be due to a lack of knowledge. A study fiom the 1970s by Henion found that purchase behaviour for laundry detergent could be changed simply by informing customers about the phosphate content. To effectively change behaviour, the information must be credible, understandable, mernorable, clear, concrete, and specific (Noye 1992). It must help people make the connection between their lifestyles and the degradation of the environment (Abraham 1992) because many customers do not relate their own actions to environrnental degradation (Stilwell et al. 1991; Wagner 1997). Stockley (1993) believes that much more progress is needed in educating consurners about the environment and what they should do to protect it. Consumer education programs, point of purchase information, and irnproved product labelling would help achieve this. The environrnental fnendliness of products is difficult to assess for many consumers; therefore, consumer confusion can be a barrier to the change to green behaviour (Wagner 1997). Even if consumers carefully read labels and are infomed of environrnental issues, it is difficult to decide which product has the least environmental impact without knowing the full life cycle (hine 1989; The Pollution Probe Foundation 1989; Stilwell et al. 199 1). Less-than-truthful advertising about "green" products in the past has led to skepticism (Wagner 1997). Labelling is sometimes not as clear or informative as it should be (The Pollution Probe Foundation 1989). Appropriate information alone will not change behaviour, however. A consumer survey done by Stockley (1993) found that consumers' decisions are based on both the information available to them at the point of purchase and on their attitudes toward environmental protection. Therefore, social, cultural, and political attitudes will need to be considered (Abraham 1992). A lack of social support to reinforce environmentally- friendly behaviour is another banier (Ananthakrishnan 1992; Noye 1992). Citizens' environmental concems &en reflect what has received attention by the media. For example, the lack of publicity on source reduction means many people are unconcemed by this issue (Carson and Moulden 1991). Factors such as the arnount of time consurned in work, lifestyle choices, societal structure, and persona1 anxieties associated with taking action al1 prevent people fiom practising environmental citizenship (NCEDR 1997). Advertising, the shopping culture, and the expansion of markets are other factors affecting purchasing behaviour (Ananthakrishnan 1992). Once the habit of buying environmentally fnendly products is fonned, the information search and processing is done aimost automatically and effortlessly (Wagner 1997). However, it is often difficult to break cultural, institutional, and sociological habits associated with an old lifestyle and to develop a new one (Filbee 1992). Schumacher (1 973, 142) eloquently states that developing a new, more environmentally conscious lifestyle "is indeed a ta11 order, not because a new lifestyle is impossible to conceive, but because the present consumer society is like a drug addict who, no matter how miserable he may feel, finds it extremely difficult to get off the hook". A study by Dembkowski (1998) attempted to hrther explain why consurners' stated consciousness differed so greatly fiom their actions at the supermarket. This study identified a number of key variables that affect the degree to which behaviour differs From stated attitudes. The variables are: -personal involvement: the involvement which a penon feels with envi ronmental prob lems; -perceived own responsibility: reflection of the persona1 responsibility for the development and/or elimination of environrnental problems. An individual who does not feel respowible in the role of the consumer for the reduction of damage to the environment will place lower relevance on related values than a consumer who perceives his or her own responsibility; -perceived environrnental relevance of consumption: the perception that, in general, hurnan consumption activities are of relevance to the state of the environment; -perceived consumer effectiveness: an individual's perception that as an individual shehe can make a contribution to a lessening of environmental darnage; -perceived environmental relevance of an individual product or a single action: those who recognize the environmental consequences of the product or a single action will place a higher pnority on environmental values than those who do not; -environmentally relevant consumer knowledge: the knowledge of an individual about environmental darnage occurring with production distribution, and consumption of a product. The relationship between knowledge and action has not been proven to be strong. Consumen may know terminology, but do not know what to do in a concrete situation; -willingness for penonal sacrifice: an individual's acceptance of penonal disadvantages in favour of more environmentally sound action. Many customers are radical at the research questionnaire, but reactionary at the checkout; -environment related behavioural intentions: the intent of an individual to do something for the state of the environment; -significance of complementary or contrary motives; -situational requirements and barriers; and -environrnentally conscious purchase and consumption behaviour. (Dembkowski 1998,63-7 1). A number of efforts have been made to increase environrnentally appropriate consumer behaviour. Grocery stores were chosen as the setting for a consumer waste education campaign by Minnesota's Office of Waste Management in 199 1- 1992. Approaches in this campaign included posters, signs, brochures, tip cards, and "shelf talkers" (comparative data at the point of purchase which aimed to educate consumers about their selections). Educational materials gave suggestions for waste reduction, including looking for products with less packaging, avoiding single-use items, buying in bulk, using re fi llable pens and pencils, buying concentrates, buying long-lasting products that can be repaired, buying only what is necessary, buying non-hazardous products, using both sides of paper, and avoiding aerosol cans. Reuse suggestions included packing lunch in reusable containers, shopping ai used clothing stores and garage sales, donating unwanted items to a charity, using cloth shopping bags, repairing items instead of replacing them, using refillable pump-spray bottles, and reusing items such as bags, jars, and plastic tubs (Countryinan 1993). Although there is a growing interest in environmental consumer behaviour, tliis has not been translated into widespread action. One possible reason for this could be that the opportunities are not available for customers to practise environmental consumer behaviour. The argument could be made that it is up to cornpanies to encourage "greener" behaviour.

2.4. GREENING OF COMPANIES Most current business practices are not environmentally sustainable (Langer 1989). For business, sustainability could be taken to mean "using as little as possible now and, if necessary, saving for future use" (Langer 1989,3O). Sustainable production and consumption, which is recognized as an important issue by the United Nations Environment Programme, was defined at the Oslo Ministerial Roundtable in 1995 as "the production and use of goods and services that respond to basic human needs and bring a better quality of life, while minimizing the use of natural resources, toxic materials, and emissions of waste and pollutants over the life cycle, so as not to jeopardise the needs of future generations" (World Business Council for Sustainable Development no date). A related term is eco-efficiency, which can be defined as "the production of goods and services which salis@ human needs while reducing environmental impacts" (Cooper 1997, 5). Incorporating any of these concepts into business operations could be considered "greening". Smith (1990) believes that social responsibiliiy, of which environmental protection is a part, can be partially achieved ihrough self-replation within industry, which will take the burden off legislative measures. Harrison (1993) claims that it is not govemments or activist groups which solve the majority of environmental challenges, but the business people that do so. The greening of a business can have npple effects because the retailers will request that rnanufacnirea change their way of production, and in tum the manufacturen will make changes that affect the resource sector (Carson and Moulden 199 1). Although the majority of businesses may not be operating sustainably, there is an interest among business people to "green" their companies. Tn fact, billions of dollars have been spent thus far (Canon and Moulden 1991). Including the environment in the decision making process is increasingly recognized by businesses as important (Sutherland 1993). Many see it as a business oppomuiity, not a hindrance (Clayton 1993; Eden 1993). A 1989 survey fond that 40% of the respondents believed that a green image was beneficial to their Company. Another survey found that 40% of companies claimed to have environrnental policies, although what managers perceive to be major changes towards "greening" operations are often only minor (Eden 1993). In general, businesses are greening to meet consumer demand, strengthen the bottom line, increase efficient y, and anticipate government regulations (Carson and Moulden 199 1). Benefits denved from greening operations include not only an increase in product sales due to the popularity of green products, but also cost savings in production as a resuit of minimizing inefficiencies. Purchasing and waste removal costs are reduced or avoided (US EPA 1999). An enhanced reputation may also result (Smith i 990; Eden 1993; Mogelonsky 1995). One of the trends reported in The Popcorn Report: On the Fictwe of Yoirr Conipany, Your Worfd, Ymr Life emphasizes that corporations must build trust with their customers, and one of the ways that they can do this is to have strong environmental and social policies which they make known (McGuire 1997). Employee morale and the ability to recruit the best personnel may also improve (Smith 1990). Greening a business may prevent &tue legal disasters. For example, three out of four rcspondents in an A.D. Little swey said they thought corporate executives shou!d be held personably liable for environrnental offences, and convictions of executives have already occurred (Harrison 1993). In addition to the strictly business aspects, greening by implementing a waste reduction program can expand landfill capacity and conserve resources (Xerox 1992). There are different Ievels of business responsibility, ranging from a proscriptive approach of obeying legislation to a proactive approach which promotes positive change. Few businesses fa11 into the proactive category, and most are reacting to an extemal push rather than intemal initiative. The view of many retailen is that they should not impose only the most environmentally Eendly products on their customers because these products may be more expensive or limited in function, but instead they should offer a choice of products, including environmentally fiiendly ones (Eden 1993). This is especially tme where extemal factors may make the choice of the most environmentally- Friendly product unclear. For exarnple, people who live in areas with limited water supply should be given the choice of using disposable or cloth diapers (Guinchard 1992). Some retailen claim that the environmentally damaging products that they sel1 are only in response to consumer demands. However, if retailers do not offer environmentally appropriate products, they limit the conswners' Freedom to choose (Eden 1993). One of the problems facing companies that wish to "green" their operations is that it is not always perfectly clear what is the best option for a product fiom an environmental perspective (Irvine 1989; Carson and Moulden 1991 ; LeMaire 199 1). Is the use of renewables always better than non-renewables (Irvine 1989)? Are cloth diapers better than disposables? Are paper coffee cups better than polyfoarn ones (Guinchard 1992)?. Adopting life cycle assessment as part of the decision-making process is likely the best way to reduce these uncertainties (Stilwell et ai. 1991 ). Another barrier is the habit of doing things in one particular way (Langer 1989). Customers may resist a change in operations. For example, when Sears started offering sonie sporting goods loose in a bin, it bund that customers preferred the product wrapped because this gave the impression that the product was undamaged and more attractive (Gold 1989). Older shoppen in particular are resistant to change (Mogelonsky 1995). Many governrnent policies and pmgrarns are not conducive to operating in an environmentally sustainable manner. Even if individuals make an effort to change their purchasing habits, the govemment regulation process is so slow that more wide-sweeping changes may still take time (Langer 1989). Businesses with low profit margins may find it difficult to put efforts into greening the Company when they are struggling to survive (Smith 1990). Pomn (1992) feels that because companies exist for profit, business will only change in response to environmental legislation. Marketing personnel may fear losing market share because of alterations to packaging, which is a major fom of advertising (Buy Recycled Campaign 1994). ïhere is often no financial incentive for companies to reduce their environmental impact because the costs of energy and raw materials are below their tnie value. With these factors of production being so cheap, there is little incentive for companies to conserve resources (Cooper 1997). The "greening" of one company will inevitably affect other companies along the chain of supply and demand. One bderto adopting green behaviour is the limited influence companies have on extemal firrns. Widespread acceptance of greening will only occur if al1 parties think they will benefit (Dutilh 1998). There is also an ethical debate about the importance to be placed on greening. Companies may green their operations and products, but they are still actively encouraging consumption, often of products (e.g. cars) that have heavy environmental impacts (Irvine 1989). Irvine suggests more efforts should be directed towards decreasing demand. Once a company is convinced that "greening" is a necessary step, it must decide how to proceed with its attempt to reduce the company's environmental impact. Canon and Moulden (1 991, 17-53) offer this strategy for greening a business: -lem al1 you can about environmental issues -figure out how the key facts affect your business focus on environmental issues keep tabs on the emerging green consumer keep ahead of govemment regulations monitor changing product standards take a hard look at your environmental liability talk to your banker about financing watch for emerging business opportunities -talk to the environmental experts environmental groups environmental consultants -write your own green strategy It is also important that businesses obtain information on the latest regulatory developments, what green consumers want, and what the cornpetitors are doing. K-Mart Austraiia, which already has a successfûl green product line, advises that businesses should ensure that a "green" product reduces consurnption, encourages people to conserve, or encourages recycling or reuse (Carson and Moulden 1991). Involving employees in the process of greening a company will help make hem more receptive to it. It is also important to work with suppliers, which can Save money for both the business and the supplier in the long term (Hanison 1993). Consumer and industry education is essential to any program designed to reduce packaging. If people are made aware of the indirect and direct impacts resulting fiom excessive or inappropriate packaging, the program will be more successfûl (Robertson 1991). Successfully marketing a business's greenness requires communication that addresses the different information characteristics of different groups, is based on facts, and uses mixed media (Wagner 1997). Announcing a green program to the public can be accomplished through press conferences, public events, annual meetings and reports, and publications. The environmental claims made about a program or product should be specific and substantive, not vague or irrelevant. Even if their intentions are sincere, businesses should be prepared for a backlash from competiton threatened by the "green" business plan, environmentalists who believe a program has not gone far enough, and a suspicious public wary of the motive (Carson and Moulden 199 1). One way that manufacturers can assure others that they are "green" is to obtain certification From organizations such as the Green Seal. This group has developed a list of standards for many categones of products and will evaluate and certify products upon request (Green Seal 1999). There have been some success stories of businesses that have made efforts to green their operations. Oland Brewery in Nova Scotia has implemented a refillable bonle deposit-retum system, which achieved a 98% return rate in 1996. Other efforts by the company, including the recycling of secondary packaging (i.e. labels and cartons), have led to a reduction of total operating waste by 92% since 1988 (Nova Scotia Environment 1 998). Migros, the largest retailer in Switzerland, has taken an environmentally sustainable stance in its operations. Some examples of its programs are selling clothes that were made in a socially and ecologically-ftiendly manner, selling agricultural products produced in a manner that respects the environment, and offering products that are less ecologically hamifil (Migros 1999). In the specific case of grocery stores, more are implementing environmentally responsible approaches in response to public awareness and demand (Anonymous 1993). Loblaws was the first to launch a line of "green" products in 1989 (Carson and Moulden 1991). There is no doubt that efforts have been made to reduce the environmental impact of business operations. However, these changes have, for the most part, been minor. There are very few companies which are rethinking the way they do business and making drastic changes. It appears that these changes are needed if a long term solution to environmental problems is to be achieved. 3 - METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION Several methods of research were used to investigate the feasibility of implementing a reusable container and bulk dispenser system. Potential products for a reusable container and bulk dispenser system were chosen based upon critena. Health regulations which could affect the system were identified and examined. Customer, employee, manager, and supplier attitudes toward the proposed system were assessed using personal interviews. This chapter describes the methodology used for each research component. Three stores were chosen as sites for this study, one fiom each of the three major supermarket chains in Halifax: Sobeys, Atlantic Superstore, and IGA. The focus of this study was on supermarkets because seemingly most people do the majority of their grocery shopping there. Also, having stores of similar size would allow for cornparisons to be made. Although al1 three are large and likely have similarities, it was probable that there were differences in philosophies, corporate structure, management techniques, and operational procedures. One store kom each chain was included in the study so that a variety of management, operational, and philosophical perspectives would be represented. The stores were also chosen so that the south, west, and north ends of peninsular Halifax would be included, ensuring a demographically-diverse sample of supermarket customers.

3.2 CHOOSING SAMPLE PRODUCTS This thesis is based on the premise that there are products available in supermarkets that could be delivered in a system that uses reusable containers and bulk dispensers. The fint step of the research was to identiS products that could potentially be sold in this manner. A walk-through of one of the supermarkets was conducted. Al1 of the types of products with which there was even a remote possibility of incorporating into a reusable container and buik dispenser system were listed along with the container(s) in which they are currently being delivered (e.g. hot chocolate is sold in tins and in packets in boxes). This list was then narrowed down to products which seemed the most suitable for a reusable container and bulk dispenser system. A sample product list was amved at by applying the following set of cnteria to each product:

1s the product a suitable consistency for buik dispensers? Would the product be easily and not messily dispensed? Would the product keep well in a bulk dispenser? Woiild using reusable containers result in a significant reduction in packaging or the environmental impact of packaging for that product? Are there no other major obstacles that would prevent the use of reusable containers with that product?

The products identified from the application of the above critena were used in several ways throughout this study. Fint, they were used when checking the health regulations to determine if there were any regulations to prevent the sale of the product using reusable containers. Second, they were used to choose the suppliers. Third, they were used as examples during the interviews. Finally, these products were used as examp les w hen making recommendations.

3.3 EXAMINATION OF HEALTH REGULATIONS A search was undertaken to identib any health regulations that might apply to reusable containers and bulk dispensen. This search involved identimng federal and provincial statutes that might have an effect on the proposed system of food distribution. Once identified, these acts were reviewed to determine if there were any regulations that would prevent or hinder a reusable container system fkom being implemented. The acts and regulations were found in libraries and via the Intemet. Several employees from applicable govemrnent departments were contacted via e-mail to ask them if they thought there were any regulations that would prevent a reusable container and bulk dispenser system fiom being implemented.

3.4 CUSTOMER AND EMPLOYEE DATA Survey questions were developed to detemine customer and employee attitudes toward the reusable container system and to identiQ potential bartiers to the proposed system. Persona1 interviewing was chosen as the method of delivenng the survey questions for several reasons. Fint, conducting the survey in the stores themselves meant that it would reach the desired audience, that is those people who shop or work at one of the three supermarkets chosen for this study. Sending out questionnaires to a random sample of persons in the Halifax area would have likely resulted in too much variation in tems of the supermarkets where people shopped. As well, the response to the survey would not have been as high or fast using questionnaires because respondent cooperation is much higher with personal interviewing (Alreck and Settle 1995). The interviewer is also able to clarify any confusion that the interviewee may have and ask the interviewee to elaborate on any responses that are unclear. (See Appendix A for the questions asked of each group.)

3.4.1 Sample size When determining the sarnple size for the customer and employee interviews, two categories of factors were taken into consideration. First, consideration was given to the statistical requirements for sarnple size. Second, practical factors were considered. 3.4.1. (i) Statisticaf requitements Different researchers have varying opinions about what constitutes an appropriate sarnple size (Berenson et al. 1988; Moore and McCabe 1993; Alreck and Settle 1995). Alreck and Settle (1995) believe the size of the sarnple is not dependent on the size of the population when the population is many times greater than the sample. Instead, they argue that a sample of 100 respondents is the minimum sarnple size for large populations. For a11 surveys, a sarnple of less than 30 respondents will not provide enough certainty to be of practical use (Alreck and Settle 1995). For the customer interviews in this study, the population (i.e. the customer base or potential customer base for each store) was judged to be large. Therefore, 1 decided to conduct at least 100 customer interviews. To alIow room for error, I decided to interview 120 customers, which would be divided equally among the three stores. This would result in 40 customen per store being interviewed, surpassing the minimum practical sample size of 30 so that the samples from each store could be analyzed separately if necessary. The sample size for the employee interviews was decided in a different manner because the size of the population (Le. the number of employees in the three stores) was much smaller. Berenson et al. (1988,65) present an example where a sample of seven was used for a population of 50. They conclude that this size of sample appears to "adequately represent the corresponding characteristics" from the population. Since the employee population of each grocery store was approximately three times the population used in the Berenson et al. example, I judged that a sample of at least three times seven (2 1) would be an adequate representation fiom each store. In addition to having adequate representation within each store, it was also desirable to have approximately equal proportions and numben of employees interviewed arnong the stores so that cornparisons could be made. I decided to interview approximately 25% of the employee population of each store, greater than the proportion suggested by Berenson et al, to ensure a more than adequate sample. At Sobeys there were 160 employees of which 60 were cashiers; at Supentore there were 1 10 employees of which 47 were cashiers; and at IGA there were 140 employees of which 50 were cashien. Because of the large number of cashiers and their limited involvement in supermarket operations, only two cashiers per store were interviewed. The number of cashiers was subtracted from the total number of ernployees per store (i.e. Sobeys: 160 ernployees total - 60 cashien = 100; Supentore: 1 10 total - 47 cashiers = 63; IGA: 140 total - 50 cashiers = 90). The remaining number of employees (i.e. 100 at Sobeys, 63 at Superstore, and 90 at IGA) were used as the totals when calculating the number of employees needed to give approxirnately 25% of the population. Because several practical factors limited the number of employees interviewed (see discussion beiow in 3.4.1 .(ii)), the final totals of employees interviewed were 24 employees plus two cashiers fiom Sobeys (24% of population), 20 ernployees plus two cashiers from Superstore (32% of population), and 19 employees plus two cashiers from IGA (21% of population). In total, 69 employees were interviewed. The chosen sample sizes meet the basic requirements, but cannot be considered large samples. Alreck and Settle (1995,68) provide a list of factors which determine whether to use a large or small sample, with large being close to their suggested maximum practical sample size of 1,000 and small being close to their suggested minimum of 100. The first factor they list is whether or not the decisions or commitments to be based on the survey have serious or costly consequences. A large sample should be chosen if there are major decisions, while only a small sample is necessary if few major decisions are to be based on the survey data. While 1 do not want to downplay the importance of my study, it is only an exploratory one upon whic h no major decisions will likely be made, other than the decision to conduct further research into implementing a reusable container system. The second factor given by Alreck and Settle is whether a very high level of confidence is demanded by the sponsors or whether only rough estimates of population parameten are required. Again, this is an exploratory study, so the precision of the data does not need to be extremely hi&. 3.R 1.(ii) Practicality The next factor was practicality. While it was important that the number of surveys were sufficient statistically, they had to be such that supermarket managers would agree to allow my research to take place at their stores. Although conducting the interviews is not very disruptive to the operations of the stores, the supermarket managea may not have been willing to permit lengthy and numerous interviews to take place. If 1 had approached each store manager and asked him/her if 1 could inte~ewover 100 customers and al1 of the employees in hidher store, 1 may not have convinced any of the managers to allow me to do the research. Supermarkets are busy and cornpetitive places. Employees are busy prcparing the product for display, stocking shelves, and seMng customers. Managers want customen to come back to shop at their stores, so they do not want to be involved with anything that would nsk losing business. Accordingly, I concluded that the sample sizes 1 proposed were reasonable. The number of employees interviewed was constrained by several other practical factors. First, atter visiting the stores a number of times it was difficult to find employees that 1 had not already interviewed or that were willing to be interviewed. Second, the interviews at ICA were undertaken in November and early December. Due to the pre- Christmas rush, employees were extra busy and had limited time to participate in the interviews. When 1 retumed in January to complete the interviews, the IGA was being converted into a Superstore and the store was chaotic; again. most employees did not have time to participate. As a result, I did not interview as many employees at IGA as at the other two sites.

3.4.2 Customer interviews The customer interviews were conducted at the supermarkets. At each supermarket two sets of twenty customer interviews were conducted, one set in the afiemoon and the other in the evening, for a total of forty customer interviews per store. 1 stood in one section of the grocery store and approached customen as they were shopping. Poiential inte~eweeswere told that 1 was a student doing research for my Master's thesis, and then they were asked if they were willing to participate in a short survey. If they agreed, they were presented with the letter of informed consent (see Appendix B) which I asked them to sign. Once the form was completed, 1 began the interview, which usually lasted three to five minutes. 3- 4-2.(i) Questions for custorners The survey questions were developed to a) determine customer attitudes towards and awareness of packaging and b) determine whether a reusable container system would be accepted by customen. The purpose of questions 1 and 2 was to determine customer attitudes, opinions, and awareness about packaging. The purpose of the first part of question 3 was to determine if customers would use a reusable container system, while the purpose of the second part was to identiS barriers that would keep people f?om participating. Question 4 was used to further detennine the willingness to participate and also to possibly identiS a potential bamier. 3.4.2. (ii) Bius Effort was made to ensure that bias was kept to a minimum. This was partially achieved by using a random sample, which is the lest likely of the sampling methods to result in bias (Alreck and Settle 1995). Affinity bias occurs when the selection of the interviewees is done by the researcher, who rnay select only certain types of respondents. People who appear humed or unpleasant, are in the Company of others, have a physical handicap, or have small children with them are often leR out of surveys (Alreck and Settle 1995). To eliminate this type of bias, 1 approached everyone who walked near me to see if he/she would like to participate in my survey. As soon as 1 completed one interview, I approached the next person who appeared in my vicinity. As a result, 1 feel that affinity bais is not a factor in the results. Surpnsingly, often the people who looked humed or unpleasant were quite willing to do the survey and were fully cooperative. There were 39 people who declined to do the survey. It may be possible that the results are affected by a nonresponse bias because the type of people who refused to participate would be underrepresented (Alreck and Settle 1995). Once the interviewees were chosen, the responses may have been biased towards what is perceived to be socially acceptable, desirable to the interviewer, or capable of enhancing the image of the respondent (Alreck and Settle 1995). One factor which rnay have caused these types of biases was the requirement by Dalhousie University to have the interviewees sign a letter of consent. The letter had to be accompanied by a short explanation of what the research was about (see Appendix B). in the letter, which was approved by the Faculty of Graduate Studies, 1 introduced myself as a Master of Environmental Studies student doing a thesis on how to reduce packaging in supemarkets. This may have influenced people to include environmentally-oriented thoughts in their responses. Interviews were conducted during both the aftemoon and the evening at each of the three stores to ensure that particular segments of the population were not over- or underrepresented (Alreck and Settle 1995). For exampie, if al1 interviews were conducted in the aftemoon, homemaken and retirees would probably be overrepresented; if al1 interviews were conducted in the evening, these groups may be underrepresented.

3.43 Empluyee interviews The employee interviews were conducted in a slightly different manner than the cusromer ones. Employees generally have a specific department of the store in which they work, so I could not stand in one section of the store and wait for them to wûlk by. Instead, 1 went to the different departments and approached the employees to ask if they would be willing to do a short survey. if they agreed, 1 gave them the letter of informed consent to sign (see Appendix B). The interviews usually lasted five to ten minutes. Employees representing al1 depmments of the store were approached, and a conscious effort was made to have a similar distribution of employees by department for each store. 3.43.(i) Questions for employees The purpose of the employee questions was a) to determine employees' attitudes towards and awareness of packaging, b) to leam more about supermarket operations and the role of packaging, and c) to determine the feasibility of a reusable container and bulk dispenser system from the employee's perspective. The purpose of the fint question was to gauge the importance of packaging in their jobs and in what way they thought about packaging. The second question was designed to identify the packaging that employees noticed as being potentially wasteful. The purpose of the third question was to identify ways that employees thought packaging could be reduced. The fourth question sought to determine whether a reusable container system was feasible from their perspective. The fifth and sixth questions sought to determine whether a change in job duties could act as a barrier to the system. The seventh and eighth questions attempted to identify other barriers ta the implementation of a reusable container system. 3.4.4 Anaiysis of customer and employee interviews 3.4.4 (i) Chi-square anulysis As mentioned in Section 3.1, three different supermarket chahs were chosen to allow a vanety of management philosophies and clientele to be represented. It is possible that there would be differences in the responses among the three supermarkets because of the differences among the stores. The fint step of analysis for both the customer and empioyee survey results was to determine whether or not there was a statistically significant relationship between the responses and the supermarket from which they were obtained. This was achieved through chi-square analysis (Berenson et al. 1988; Moore and McCabe 1993; Alreck and Settle 1995). The purpose of the chi-square test is to determine if the nul1 hypothesis. which States that there is no relationship between variables. can be rejected. Therefore, the fint step of chi-square analysis is to formulate a nul1 hypothesis. In this study the nuIl hypothesis is H,,: There is independence (no re farionslzip)benveen the responses and the sz~penmrket. The next step is the construction of a contingency table for each question of the customer and employee surveys. A contingency table, which is a table designed to examine categoncal responses to two or more variables simultaneously. is comprised of r x c cells where r = the number of rows c = the number of columns.

A ceII is the frequency count for each possible combination of responses (Berenson et al. 1988; Moore and McCabe 1993).

Figure 2: Exampie of a contingency table (for employee question 7)

Supermarket A Supermarket B Supermarket C Yes 16 15 15

L No 10 7 6

h The chi-square test compares the set of observed frequencies with the theoretical set of frequencies which would be expected if there was no relationship between variables. The formula for the chi-square statistic is x'= [Cf, - f# / fr] w here fo is the observed frequency in a cell fris the theoreticai frequency. The value of f,can be found by using the formula (n,n,)/ n where n, is the total number in the row n, is the total number in the column n is the total sample size. The nul1 hypothesis that the variables are independent can only be rejected if the calculated value of zZ is greater than the value found in a table for the cntical values of X' (Berenson et al. 1988; Moore and McCabe 1993). The cntical value is found in the table by coordinating the desired level of significance, which in this study is the standard 0.05. with the appropriate degrees of freedom. The formula for the degrees of freedom is (r-l)(c-1). If the results were determined by the chi-square test to be independent from the store, the responses of al1 three stores were combined. If the results were not independent, the responses were presented by store, and an attempt was made to explain why the responses were different. Where the responses were different, the stores are not referred to by their chain names when discussing the responses, but are instead referred to as supermarket A, B, and C to guarantee confidentiality. 3.4.4 (ü) Analysis of responses The responses to each question are presented as frequencies. Detailed summaries of the results are presented in tabular format in Appendices C and D.

3.5 MANAGER DATA The manager of each store was interviewed, as well as an assistant manager of one of the stores. The interview with the assistant manager was used to test the questions, and the responses are not included in the results. Al1 manager interviews were conducted at the supermarkets.

3.5.1 Questions for managers As with the employee interviews, the objective of the manager interviews was a) to determine their attitudes towards and awareness of packaging, b) to gain knowledge on how packaging works within the food supply chain. and c) to determine the feasibility of a reusable container system. Because of their positions as overseers of al1 of the store operations. managers were asked more questions than the employees. The first question was asked to gauge how much thought managers give to packaging. The purpose of the second question was to identify any packaging that stands out as king a problern for supermarkets. The third question was asked to help identify packaging that could obviously be reduced. The fourth question was designed to identify ways (e.g. behrivioural, operational) that packaging could be reduced, whi le the fi fth question sought to identify other ways to reduce packaging in the context of cost. The sixth question is an important one because it asked whether or not a reusable container system is feasible. Questions 7 through 10 were designed to identify any potential barriers to a reusable container system. Finally, question 11 probed for insight into who drives the food supply chain or the perception of who drives the chain. It may also indicate another barrier to a reusable container system.

3.5.2 Analysis Because there were only three respondents, no statistical anaiysis could be performed. However, the responses were used to gain insight into the operations of a supermarket, what role packaging has in the operations, and whether a reusable container system could succeed. The responses were compiled into tabular format to allow an informal cornparison arnong the managers (see Appendix E). 3.6 SUPPLIER DATA 3.6.1 Selection Suppliers were selected based upon the potential product list that was established, with supplien who represented a variety of the products being chosen. Local and national suppliers were contacted. The narnes and phone numbers of local suppliers were obtained fiom the yellow pages, while the narnes of national companies were obtained from the yellow pages, food labels, and a Food Industry Council website that listed its members. For the purpose of this study, "supplier" means either a manufacturer or a distributor of food products.

3.6.2 Questions for suppliers The purpose of the questions for the supplien was a) to gain insight into how food is distributed and what role packaging has in that distribution, b) to determine the attitudes of the suppliers toward the possibility of a reusable container and bulk dispenser system, and c) to detennine whether any necessary changes would be feasible fiom their perspective. The first question was intended to determine the importance of packaging to the supplier. The purpose of the second question was to identiQ packaging that could be reduced. The purpose of the third and fourth questions was to gain insight into what would be involved from a supplier's perspective in implementing a reusable container system and whether or not it was feasible. The fifh question was designed to identifi either a potential barrier or a potential incentive. The last question was asked to enable a cornparison with the last question asked to the managers. Like the similar question for the managers, its purpose was to identify who drives the food chah or the perception of who drives the food chah.

3.6.3 Interviews Six suppliers were contacted by phone and asked the questions verbally. One supplier was contacted via e-mail and was subsequently e-mailed the questions, which were resporided to by e-mail. The phone interviews with the food suppliers began with a brief introduction of who I was and what research 1 was doing. Mer being directed to the most appropriate employee, chosen by whomever answered the phone, 1 would again do an introduction. The employee would then be asked the list of prepared questions. These interviews usually lasted approximately ten minutes. in the case of the e-mail "interview", 1 contacted the Company by e-mail and requested a phone interview. The manager who responded to my inquiry instructed me to e-mail the questions.

3.6.4 Analysis The small sample precluded statistical analysis. The responses were compiled in tabular format to allow an informa1 comparison among the suppliers (see Appendix F). This informa1 comparison would possibly reveal a pattern. The results would also provide information regarding the supplier component of the packaging chain.

3.7 OVERALL ANALYSIS The results and analysis of each research component were used to draw conclusions about the feasibility of the proposed reusable container and bulk dispenser system. Recommendations are based on these conclusions. 4 - RESULTS

4.1 PRODUCT SELECTION The cntena given in Section 3.2 were applied to the large list of products that were noted as potentially being suitable for a reusable container and bulk dispenser system. The products on this list were divided into: a) products packaged by the manufacturer and b) products which either the supermarket packages or are packaged by the consumer. Using the criteria, products of the first type were reduced to the following list that could be dispensed from buk containers into a reusable container:

coffee hot chocolate juice crystals juices water cooking vinegadwines mustard relish ketchup BBQandsteaksauces shampoo laundry detergent liquid fabnc sofiener dish detergent

Producis which are packaged by the supermarket or consumer and which could be put into a reusable container are:

typical bulk products in the dready-existing buk sections (e.g. spices, pasta, rice, cmdy) 52 baked goods fkom the bakery deli products

A thorough assessrnent might reveal other products wi th which a reusable container and bulk dispenser system might work. However, for the purposes of this study, only the products mentioned above were considered.

4.2 HEALTH REGULATIONS Employees within the health and agricultural departments at both the provincial and federal levels of govemrnent were contacted to determine if there were any regulations that they thought would affect a reusable container and bulk dispenser system. Al1 who replied to my inquines believed that there were no regulations which would prohibit such a system. To confirm this, regulations which might affect a reusable container and bulk dispenser system were reviewed. The only act which appears to have any relevance in terms of health regulations is the federal Food and Dnrgs Act. Under the Act, labels with information such as packaging date, durable life date, and ingredients are required for certain foods.

B.O1 .O03 The following foods shall carry a label when offered for sale: (a) al1 prepackaged products other than (i) prepackaged confections, commonly known as one bite confections, that are sold individually, and (ii) prepackaged products consisting of fresh hits or fiesh vegetables that are packaged in a wrapper or confining band of less than 2/2 inch in width; (b) meat and meat by-products that are barbecued, roasted or broiled on the retail prernises; and (c) poultry, poultry meat or poultry meat by-products that are barbecued, roasted or broiled on the retail premises; (d) horse-meat or horse-meat by-product; (e) any substance or mixture of substances for use as a food additive or food additive preparation; and (f) flour and whole wheat flour that has been treated with gamma radiation from Cobalt 60 Source.

B.01.004 (1) All or part of the label referred to in section B.Ol.03 shall be applied (a) in the case of a prepackaged product. to the container in which the prepackaged product is sold; and (b) in the case of a food that is not a prepackaged product, to the food itself.

(2) The label shall be applied in such a manner that the container of the prepackaged product or the food, as the case may be. will bear the label at the time it is sold.

The Food and Dnigs Act defines prepackaged product as "an y food that is contained in a package in the rnanner in which it is ordinarily sold to or used or purchased by a person" (8.O 1.O0 1). Li ke existing bulk food products. the proposed dispenser system would be exempt from these laws because the products would not be considered prepackaged. Regulations are also set under the Act for individual types of food (e.g. orange juice). These regulations are concerned with the product content and do not specify how the product is to be packaged or sold. Therefore, these regulations would not affect the pro posed reusable container and bu1 k produc t dispenser system. In addition to health regulations, other statutes that might be pertinent to the proposed system were exarnined. Under the fedenl Consumer Packaging and Lnbelling Act and its regulations, the proposed bulk dispenser system would be exempt from regulations (eg label requirements) that would prevent the sysiem from openting because the product would not be considered prepackaged ("any product that is packaged in a container in such a manner that it is ordinarily sold to or used or purchased by a consumer without being re-packaged" [2.(1)] ). A review of provincial regulations did not identify any statutes that would affect the proposed reusable container and bulk dispenser system. 4.3 CUSTOMER INTERVIEWS To determine if the responses were independent of the supermarket from which they were obtained, the nul1 hypothesis Ho:There is independence (no relationship) behveeu the responses and the supermarket was tested for each question using the chi- square test at a level of significance of 0.05. (See Appendix G.) This nul1 hypothesis could not be rejected for any of the questions, so there does not appear to be any statistically signi ficant relationship between the responses and the supermarkets from which they were obtained. Therefore, the responses from the three supermarkets will be combined and presented by ovenll totals.

4.3.1 Responses to question 1: Does packaging concern you? Ifso, in what way? In response to the question of whether packaging concemed them. 75 (62.5%) out of the 130 customers interviewed said yes. 15 (12.5%) said somewhat, and 30 (25%) said no. Of the customers who said packaging concemed them, 56 expressed environmental or waste concems. Other concems, such as the quality of packaging, were noted by 25 of the customen who said packaging concemed them. (N.B. Since some customers expressed both of these concems, the totals of these two categories add to more than 75. This discrepancy will occur for other questions in this study.) Twelve of the customers who said packaging somewhat concemed them had environmental or waste concems, while four had quality concerns in mind.

4.3.2 Responses to question 2: Can you think of ways thatpackaging could be reduced or eliminated? Ninety-five (794) out of the 120 customen could think of ways that packaging could be reduced or eliminated, while 25 (21%) couid not. The most popular way identified was to reduce the amount of double packaging (e.g. a bag inside of a box). This response was given by 25 customers. Using more recyclables and compostables was a suggestion given by 18 respondents. Sixteen people thought excess packaging should be reduced, and another 16 suggested using more products in bulk. Fourteen of the customers thought using reusables could reduce or eliminate some packaging. Replacing existing packaging with less matenal or more environrnentally-fnendly material was suggested by ten respondents. Three customers suggested reducing Styrofoam, three suggested using a di fferent delivery system, two suggested reducing toxic matenals, two suggested introducing legislation or regulations to reduce packaging, and one suggested reducing plastic.

4.3.3 Responses to question 3: Would you be willing to participate in a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system ? Out of the 120 customen interviewed, 70 (58%) said they would be willing to participate in a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system. Another 29 (24%) stated either that they might participate, that they would participate but it would depend on a few factors, or that they had a few reservations. Only 21 (18%) said that they would not be willing to participate. The most common reason given for wanting to participate is a concem for the environment or waste. This response was given by 58 customers. Twenty-two respondents would participate because they felt it would be cheaper. Three customers believed that using a reusable container system would allow them to get the quantity they want. One customer felt that such a system would limit impulse shopping, one thought it would be more hygienic, one thought it would be easier, and another felt it would eliminate the step of moving the product from one container to another. As in the case of the group of customen who said they would participate, those who said they might participate most commonly cited environmental or waste-related reasons (20 responses). Four stated they might participate because it would be cheaper. Improved food quality and the fact that participation might be socially expected were each given by one custorner as the reason for possible participation. The most cornmon reservation arnong those who said they might participate was that of inconvenience, which was the reason given by 13 customers. Health and sanitary concems were expressed by seven customen. Two customen had reservations about the quality of products sold this way. and two said they would not use a reusable container system for certain things. Inconvenience was the top reason given for not participating, with 12 custoniers giving this response. Eight said they would not participate because of health or safety concerns. One customer would not participate because he/she did not see the need for a reusable container system.

4.3.4 Responses to question 4: Would you Be willing to puy more for products sold this way ? When asked if they would be willing to pay more for products sold in a reusable container system. only 25 (25%) out of the 99 who said they would or might participate stated they would pay more, while 40 (4 1%) said they would not. Eighteen (1 8%) said they might pay more. and sixteen (16%) said they would pay a little bit more.

4.4 EMPLOYEE INTERVIEWS The nul1 hypothesis Ho:ïlere is nidependence (no relationship) berneen the responses and the supermarket was tested for each question using the chi-square test at a level of significance of 0.05. (See Appendix G.) This nul1 hypothesis could not be rejected for any of the questions except for question 4. This indicates that. with the exception of question 4, there is no statisticaily significant relationship between the responses and the supermarket from which they were obtained. Therefore, al1 of the responses except those for question 4 will be discussed as overdl totals and not by store. For question 4, which asked employees if they thought a reusable container and bulk dispenser system was feasible, the nul1 hypothesis was rejected. This indicates that there is a statistically significant relationship between the responses and the store from which they were obtained. The responses to this question will be presented both by store totals and by overall total. To guarantee confidentiality, the stores will not be referred to by their chah names when discussing the responses to this question. but instead will be called supermarket A, B, and C. 4.4.1 Responses to question 1: Does packaging concem you? ifso, in whaî way ? Forty-three (62%) of the 69 employees interviewed said that packaging concemed them, five (7%) said packaging somewhat concerned them, and 21 (31%) said packaging did not concem them. Among the 43 employees who said packaging concemed them. there were 27 concems about the quality of packaging and 20 environmental or waste concems. There were two concems about qudity, two concems about the environment or waste. and one concem about cost among the five employees who said packaging sornewhat concerned them.

4.4.2. Responses to question 2: What kind of packaging can be reduced or eliminated? Forty-two (6 1%) employees could think of packaging that could be reduced or eliminated. while 27 (39%) could not think of any packaging that could be reduced or eliminated. The most cornmon answer given was to reduce overpackaging, with L5 employees giving this answer. Reducing double packaging (e.g. a bag inside a box) was the next most common response, given by nine employees. Six employees said plastics could be reduced, five mentioned Styrofoam, and four said shipping packaging. Using recyclables andor compostables was the answer given by four respondents as a way pac kaging could be reduced or eliminated. Likewise. two thought using reusables could reduce packaging. Substituting materials (2 responses), using bulk (I), using more concentrates (1). using a different delivery system (1), and not packaging as much product that does not sel1 well (1) were also ways given to reduce or eliminate packaging.

4.4.3. Responses to question 3: What types ofinMves could be undertaken to reduce packaging ? Twenty-nine employees (42%) could think of other initiatives that could be undertaken to reduce packaging, while 40 (58%)could not. Using reusables, suggested by six employees, was the most cornrnon idea given. Five employees suggested using products in bulk, five suggested using recyclables andlor compostables, and another five suggested employing a different delivery system. Reducing the arnount of packaging and substi tuti ng materials were each suggested by three respondents. Two employees thought manufacturers could take the initiative. One employee suggested making packaging more durable.

4.4.4 Responses to question 4: Do you think th& a refiliable container and bulk product dispenser system is feasible? 4.4.4 (i) Overall resulfs Of the 69 employees interviewed 21 (30%) thought a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system was feasible. 24 (35%) thought it may be feasible or thought it was feasible but they had a few reservations, and 24 (358) thought it was not feasible. The most common concem in the "maybelyes with some reservations" category was customer resistance (1 1 responses). Five gave logistical issues as a concem, four had concerns about the maintenance and potential mess of such a system, four thought it would only work for certain products. three had concems about the cleanliness of containers. three were concemed about theft, and two expressed concern about health issues. Of the employees who did not think a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system was feasible, the most common concem was the maintenance of the system and that it would be too time consuming (1 1 responses). Seven hdhealth or sani tary concerns. Customer resistance was a concem for six employees. How to manage "tare" (the allowance for the weight of the container) was a problem given by five employees. Three cited theft as a potential problem. Two thought it would not be possible for al1 products. Logistical issues, marketing problems, and safety were each given by one employee as reasons which would prevent the system from working. 4.4.4 (ii) Results by supermarket This question was the only one for which there were any statisticaily significant differences among the supermarkets. In Supermarket A, nine employees thought a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system was feasible, 12 thought it might be feasible but had a few concems, and five thought it was not feasible. Supermarket B had similar responses, with 10 employees believing it was feasible, five stating it might be feasible, and seven stating it was not feasible. In contrast, at Supermarket C only two thought it was feasible, while seven thought it might be feasible but had some concems. Twelve employees did not think it was feasible. This number of those at Supermarket C who did not think it was feasible is equal to the other two stores combined. Among those at Supermarket A who thought it might work but had some concems the main reservation was the potential for customer resistance, with seven employees expressing this concem. Three employees felt that maintaining the system and keeping it from getting messy would be a problem. Two thought that it would not work for al1 things, while one expressed concem about how to manage pncing and tare (the allowance for the weight of the container). Customer resistance was also the top concem among those who said it was not feasible, with three employees giving this answer. Three employees also thought that maintenance of the system would be an obstacle. Two employees felt that a reusable container system would not work for al1 things. Logistical issues and the risk of tampering were each stated by one employee as reasons why the system would not work. At Supermarket B the cleanliness of customers' containers was the top concem among those employees who said that the system might work but they had a few concems. This response was given by three employees. Two employees felt the system would only work for certain things, and one empioyee had a concem about customer resistance. Among the employees who thought a reusable container system was not feasible, four thought that maintenance would be a problem. Customer resistance. managing tare. controlling the cleaniiness of customers' containen, and the loss of marketing were each stated by one employee as reasons why a reusable container system would not be feasible. At Supermarket C four of the seven employees who said that the system might work believed that logistical issues could be a problem. Three employees expressed concems about customer resistance to the system, and another three employees were concemed about the potential for theft. Two employees had health issues with the proposed system. One employee thought the reusable container system might be messy. Of the 12 employees who thought the system was not feasible, five had health and sanitary concerns. Four employees thought the proposed system would be too time consuming. Another four thought that dealing with tare would be an obstacle. Theft was a concem for three employees. Customer resistance was an obstacle for two employees and safety was a concem for one employee.

4.4.5. Responses to question 5: Would you be willing to change some of your job drrties if a reusable container and bulk product system were implemented? Sixty-one out of the 69 employees (89%) interviewed said they would be willing to change their job duties if a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system were implemented. Five (7%) said they would change but had a few reservations, while only three (4%) said they would not be willing to change their job duties.

44.6. Responses to question 6: Do you think your job sould be easier or more diiult follo w irzg the implementation of the system ? Seventeen (25%) employees thought their jobs would be easier following the implernentation of a reusable container system, while 32 (46%) thought their jobs would be more difficult. Sixteen (23%) felt their job duties would remain the same. Two (3%) though t that part of their jobs would be easier but other parts would be more difficult.

One employee thought she would be out of ü job if a reusable container and bulk product system were implemented. Another did not know whether his job would be easier or more difficult.

1.4.7. Responses to question 7: Do you have any healllr and safeo concems with a rezt sable container and bulk product system ? Forty-six employees (67%) had concems regarding the healih and safety of a reusable container and bulk product system. The most common concem, voiced by 25 employees. was the cleanliness of the containers brought to the supermarket by the customer. Bacteria and contamination were mentioned by 18 employees as being a potential problem, while 13 questioned whether having customen touching the dispensers would be sanitary. One employee had a safety concem about the possibility of people slipping on product that dripped from the dispensers ont0 the floor.

4.1.8. Responses to question 8: What other concerns or fisues con you identii? When asked whether they had other concems or issues with a reusable container and bu1 k product system, 29 (424)employees expressed additional concems while 40 (58%) did not. Nine employees answered that customer resistance could be a problem. Health issues were a problem for seven employees. Five employees had concems about maintenance and another five had concems with the logistics of operations. The potential problem wi th tare was mentioned by four employees. Manufacturer resistance was an issue for two ernployees, and cost was also an issue for two employees. Loss of saies and theft were each cited as concems by one employee.

4.5 MANAGER INTERVIEWS 4.5.1 Responses to question 1: Does packaging concem you ? If su, in whuf way ? Al1 three managers answered that packaging concemed them. One manager was pnmarily concemed with the cost of packaging and its removal. This manager also had concerns about the damage to packaging in the chah of supply. Another manager was conccrned about packaging because it dictates how the product is displayed for sale. This manager also stated that packaging can be a problem because of the different recycling requirements for different types. The arnount of work involved with packaging and the handling of it were concems of the third manager. Dealing with the excess and comments from customers about waste and the environment were aspects of packaging that this manager confronted in day-to-day operations.

45.2 Responses to question 2: Mai kind of packuging is the most problematic? The types of packaging that were identified by one manager as king the most problematic were ten-pack dnnk units and multipacks. These are a problem because refunds are not dictated by govemment, so there is some confusion and complaints from customers. Another manager had problems with heavy plastic because it does not bale as well and is subject to more damage than cardboard. The third manager did not have any problems with packaging.

4.5.3 Responses to question 3: Wh& kind of packaging cm be reduced or eliminated? Some of the packaging at the warehouse level, such as the plastic around sugar bales. was identified by one manager as king unnecessary. One manager could not think of any packaging that could be reduced or eliminated. Another felt that at the supemarket level there was no packaging that could be reduced because it was needed for sanitary reasons, although this manager did suggest that some of the double wrapping is unnecessary.

45.4 Responses to question 4: Whttypes of initiatives couid be undertaken to reduce packaging ? One manager thought encouraging customers to use cardboard boxes and paper bags to transport grocenes was an initiative that could be taken to reduce packaging. Another suggested that retuming to a full-service bakery and other methods of old- fashioned service would help reduce packaging. The third manager could not identify any initiatives that could be undertaken.

4.5.5 Responses to question 5: Do you see opporfunitiesfor reducing costs associated with packaging? Eac h of the managers could identify ways to reduce costs associated with packaging. One thought costs could be reduced by using resealable bags for cereal instead of boxes with bags. Training cashiers and baggers to package more grocenes into a flat-bottomed bag was suggested by one manager as a way to reduce costs. although this manager also noted that customen do not like having their grocery bags packed too full. The other manager thought that the suppliers could make some changes. such as using bands instead of plastic wrapping to contain products, which would help reduce costs. 4.5.6 Responses to question 6: Is a refllabfe container and bulk product dispenser system a feasible option? One manager said that a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system would be feasible for some things, in particular the bulk food section, and could reduce costs and reduce plastic. This manager pointed to the existing system of bottled water which is soId in a similar manner as an indication that a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system could work for some things. He felt, however, that the system would not work for the entire store because some products need to be packaged. He also thought it would be too big of a project to undertake for the entire store. Another manager did not know whether it would be feasible. The main concern was how to manage tare and the weighing of the product so that customers would not be paying for the weight of the container. The third manager thought that a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system was not feasible for several reasons. Health issues such as having products open to customers and the possibility of contamination were identified as obstacles. As well, the lack of tare would cause difficulties when the products reached the cashiers. This manager believed that processing products under this system would be a large job.

1.5.7 Responses to question 7:Do you think this system would Save money or cost money? One manager thought the system would Save money because the store could buy in larger units. The decrease in bags and other supplies needed would also help reduce costs. Another manager thought the savings would depend on the section of the store.

He fel t t here would be increased costs at the front end (cashiers) but that overall there would be savings. The third manager thought there would be increased costs with the system. 4.53 Responses to question 8: Do you think Lis system would involve more tinie for employees ? Increased time for employees was anticipated by one manager. The manager of mother store thought that the system would initially involve more time for the ernployees because of the set-up time required to increase the bulk capacity, but that the costs of this extra time would be negligible if sales increased. The other manager thought that overall the system would not involve extra time for employees because customers would be doing most of the work.

4.5.9 Responses to question 9: Do you have any health or safety concerns wilh this systeni ? Al1 three managers had concerns about health and safety with a reusable container system. The common concem among the three managers was the possibility of contamination. One manager pointed out that lame, insects, and moths could be passed dong via the containers. If the container was used after a long time at home, the cleanliness could not be guaranteed. Another manager also expressed concem about the cleanliness of the containers A concem voiced by the ihird manager was that the cost would be retumed to the store if customers complained about unsanitary product. This manager suggested that there would have to be rules and guidelines to ensure that health and safety would not be a problem.

45.10 Responses to question 10: What other concerns or issues con you identii? Each of the managers had additional concems. The biggest issue for one of the managers was tare. There would have to be uniformity and a tare factor at the register so that customen would not have to pay for the weight of the container. According to the manager, tares are not easily managed and the govemment watches tares very closely. This manager also questioned whether the computer system would be able to handle the new method of tare required by this program. Another manager also expressed concem about tare and how to set the scales. The third manager felt the onus would be primarily on the manufacturer, and that manufacturers have already made a lot of progress in reducing packaging through using reusables and recyclables.

4.5.1 1 Responses to question 11: Do you think the suppliers would ugree to do th&? Why or why not? All three managers thought that suppliers would probably agree to use a reusable container system. One manager thought the suppliers would agrec because it would cost less for them. Another suggested that suppliers would agree if they had only to change their system to supply a big container and the store had the responsibility for the product and its cost. The other manager stated that suppliers are interested in profit so they would have to look at the system from a cost perspective. This manager also believed that the willingness to participate would depend on the suppliers and their respect for the environment.

4.6 SUPPLIER INTERVIEWS 4.6.1 Responses to question 1: Dues packaging concern you? If so, in what way ? Al1 but one of the supplier representatives answered that packaging concemed them. The one representative who did not said that even though his job is in purchasing where he deals with a lot of packaging, the issue was a coprate concem because packaging should be reduced through the whole system. not just at the customer level. Environmental issues were discussed by five supplier representatives. Two suppliers noted the importance of looking at the impacts of packaging throughout the entire life cycle, not just at the disposai stage. Another noted that her company has already made changes to reduce the environmental impacts of packaging and that the company continues to evduate its packaging. LandfiIl problems and using recycled packaging were two other issues discussed. Four of the seven supplien mentioned the costs associated with packaging as being a concem. One representative spoke of the importance of having the most effective packaging at the lowest price. According to one supplier representative, packaging increases the cost of delivery because shipment payrnents are calculated by weight. Another said that costs were incurred by packaging at each stage throughout the life cycle of the product, including costs associated with its environmental impacts. The expense of glass was noted by one representative as king of concern. Four of the seven also mentioned customer-related issues. One representative noted that packaging must be consumer friendly. According to another supplier, the public's opinion of packaging is very important from a business perspective, even if this opinion is not based on facts (e.g. what is best for food safety). One supplier noted that the product rnust be presented in a pleasing and useful way to the customer. Another mentioned that changes in packaging often take time before they are accepted by consumers. Two suppliers noted that packaging changes constantly. Another issue, mentioned by one supplier, was the difficulty of product storage due to packaging.

4.6.2 Responses to question 2: Can you think of ways that packaging could be reduced or elirninated? Al1 seven supplier representatives were able to think of ways that packaging could be reduced or eliminated. Reducing cardboard for cases, using recyclable totes and bins, reducing package size. and reducing excess packaging used solely for marketing were four suggestions given. Two suppliers noted that most companies look for ways to reduce packaging because it costs them money. Five suppliers noted limitations for reductions. Two supplien noted that the importance of shelf presence limits the amount that packaging cm be reduced. Other suppliers had additiond issues. The functional requirements of packaging must be met or reductions could result in increased costs. Reductions cm only go so far before the integrity of the product is threatened, leading to a loss of customer trust in the product. Some packaging may look excessive but is needed to protect product quality. For example, some packaging is needed to protect the moisturizing ingredients in soap. 4.6.3 Responses to question 3: Wh& logislies would be involved in using a refihble container and bulk product dispenser system ? The responses to this question ranged from making simple changes to overhauling entire operations. One supplier thought that the logistics of changing would be quite simple because the Company already supplies products to the food service industry in large dispensers. This representative thought the systems in supermarkets might be more difficult to change, however. The change in the distribution system to customen would involve major changes to the production operations for four supplien. A retooling of the system and new equipment would be required. One supplier noted that entire manufacturing and supemarket systems would have to be altered. Two of the supplier representatives identified issues with food spoilage that would have to be addressed. One of the suppliers noted that dispensers wodd have to be developed to keep products cold and clean. For some products the volume of the dispenser would need to be kept srnall. For others the dispensers would have to be refrigerated. One supplier stated that ketchup would have to be refrigented if it were sold in bulk even though it is not refrigented when sold prepackaged. He questioned whether the power used to refrigerate the dispenser would offset the environmental benefits of using reusable containers. Products would have to be chosen that were not subject to spoilage. Other logistical issues include developing consistent containers to enable them to be shipped on pallets, developing the dispensers to prevent product from dripping, and labelling products that need label declarations (e.g. products containing peanuts). Supplier representatives also identified other issues to think about, including who is going to control the system, who is responsible for food safety problems, whether stores in rural areas would have enough turnover, and whether getting permission from stores to change the distribution system would be a problern. One supplier noted that the logistics of handling large heavy dispensers in stores would have to be considered. Two suppliers suggested that extra marketing, either in the fom of advertising or the development of attractive containers, would be necessary to convince customers to use the reusable containers.

4.6.4 Responses to question 4: Mat is the feasibüity of the changes th& you would rieed to make? Three suppliers thought the changes involved with a reusable container system would be feasible, one had major concems, another said it would depend on the product and volume, and two thought it would not be feasible. One of the suppiiers who thought the system was feasible concluded that the required changes would not be major and that it would work especially well with powdered products. Another thought a reusable container program would be particularly feasible in û small-scale closed distribution system. The third supplier thought the widespread implementation of reusable container systems would likely occur in the future because similar ideas are already king used in Europe. The supplier who had concems stated that if a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system was a better method of delivery and was demanded by customers. the Company would do it. This supplier expressed some concems, however, about the major changes that would be needed in the plant, the potentid health problems and who would be responsible for these problems, and whether grocery retailen and customers would embrace the system.

46.5 Responses to question 5: Do you think this system would save money or cost nt oney ? Two of the suppliers thought that a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system would sûve money, one thought it would be more costly, two thought there would be increased costs but these costs would be bdanced out by savings to the consumer, and two did not know whether there would be savings or costs. The supplier who felt this system would be more costly pointed to the costs of overhauling the existing production system as the reason for the costs, since the cost of equipment in the process line can reach several million dollars. This supplier also noted that there would be costs associated with cornprornising the benefits provided by the pac kaging.

4.6.6 Res ponses to question 6: Do pou think the store managers and employees would be able and willing to operate this type of system? Why or why not? Only one supplier thought that supermarket managers and ernployees would be willing to operate a reusable container system. Five thought that supermarket managers and employees would Iikely not be willing, while one supplier thought they would definitely not be willing. The representative who thought that supermarket managers and employees would be willing noted that the rapidly filling landfills would make evident that something different must be done. This representative also thought this system might eliminate costs for supermarkets. Three of the suppliers who said that supermarket managers and employees would probably not be willing thought that anticipated customer resistance would prevent them from participating. Increased time and work for employees and a decrease in efficiency of shelf service were also cited as reasons why supermarket personnel would likely not want to participate. Two suppliers thought that there would have to be monetary gains before the stores would participate. One representative noted that this system might be accepted if a partnenhip were formed to share costs. 5 - DISCUSSION

The completion of the literature review and the study segments revealed barriers to a reusable container and buk product dispenser system in supermarkets, as well as positive indicaton that the system would work. These barriers and oppomuiities will be discussed in this chapter, followed by an evaluation of the feasibility of the system speci fically .

5.1 BARRIERS TO THE SYSTEM Analyzing the results from the study segments indicates that there are tluee main areas of concem about the proposed reusable container and bulk product dispenser system. These concems were regarding health-related issues, tare, and customer resistance due to perceived inconvenience. Although there were no health regulations which would prohibit the proposed system, customers, employees, and managers expressed concems regarding health-related issues. Within this category there were three main areas of concem: the cleanliness of customer;' containers, the spreading of bacteria or other fonns of contarninants, and whether it is sanitary to have customers touch the dispensers. The most cornmon concem, the cleanliness of customen' containers, is in large part beyond the control of the supermarkets. Yet, several employees and one of the managers mentioned that the supermarket could be held legally responsible if health problems resulted from contamination caused by unclean containers. Efforts would have to be made to ensure that the containers brought to the store by customen were sufficiently clean. One option is to establish a cleaning system at the entrance of the supermarket which would clean the containers to an accepted standard within seconds. The cleaning system could be designed to minimize the amount of water used and to minimize other environmental impacts so that the benefits of using a reusable container system are not cancelled by the impacts of the cleaning system. Another strategy is to educate customers about the importance of bringing in clean containers and how to properly to clean the containers- The next most comrnon concem was the spreading of bactena or other foms of con tarninants. This could possibly be controlled by constructing a mechanism on the dispenser which would not allow the container to actually touch the dispensing nozzle, thus preventing the spreading of contaminants from unclean containers to clean containers. As well, if the containers were cleaned in a standardized cleaning system, the spreading of bacteria would be greatly reduced or eliminated. Another major coocem, expressed primarily by the employees, wûs whether it is sanitary to have customers touch the dispensers when they are obtaining the products. This could easily be controlled by incorporating onto the dispenser an enclosed area that surrounds the actual dispensing nozzle. The container would slide into this enclosed area and custorners would not directly touch the dispensing nozzle, but would push a button to activate the dispensing of the product. How to manage tare was a concem that was expressed by the supermarket ernployees and managers. Tare could be dealt with by developing a system for the supermarket in which the weight of a customer's container would be determined at a scale which generates a bar code sticker telling how much the container weighs. This bar code would stay on the container, so it would only have to be weighed the fint time it was used. At the checkout the container with the product in it would be weighed on the scale, and the bar code would tell the cornputer how much to subtract for the weight of the container. Some products which already have standardized container sizes (e.g. ketchup) may not need to be weighed because they could be sold by the container, like they are currently, and not by weight. Other products, for example bakery goods, would not be weighed but counted instead. Customer resistance was the third major barrier that was identified. Although 82% of custorners stated they either would or rnight use the proposed system, customer resistance was a common concern among employees, managers, and suppliers. In addition. four suppliers had customer-related issues when asked how packaging concemed them. The concems expressed by the suppliers, managers, and employees suggst that they perceive customers as the force driving the food supply chain. Measures must be taken to ensure that the system is as user-friendly as possible to reduce customer resistance. However, with increasing numben of single people desinng single-serve packaging and working parents relying on convenience foods to feed their families, convenience is a major function of packaging (Anonymous 1989a; Sloan 1993; Lave et al. 1995; Mogelonsky 1995). The perceived inconvenience of using a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system was the main reservation expressed about the system by the custornen surveyed in this study. Having to take some containers with them when they go to the supermarket wili no doubt be somewhat more inconvenient for customers than getting the package at the supermarket. Although breaking cultural, institutional, and sociological habits associated with the current lifestyle and developing a new one is difficult (Filbee 1992). once the habit of buying environmentally friendly products is formed it is done almost automatically and effortlessiy (Wagner 1997). When people became accustomed to using the system. bringing containers would becorne a habit and no longer seem inconvenient. For example, some shoppers are now so used to bnnging cloth baps to the supermarket to carry their grocenes that they never think of it as king more inconvenient than getting the plastic shopping bags at the store. With the proposed systern the customen may also experience a deciine in the inconvenience associated with the disposal of soiid waste. In addition to the three major areas of concem that were expressed throughout the study. there were other potential barriers identified. There appears to be a lack of communication among the groups of stakeholders in the grocery suppl y chah. For example. even though 82% of the customers surveyed said they either would or rnight participate in a reusable container and bulk product dispenser systern, employees, managers, and suppliers appeared dubious that the customen would use the system. As well, suppliers did not think that the supermarket managers would be willing to operate a reusable container system, although the managers thought that supplier participation would not be a probiem. If each stakeholder group does not have faith in or knowledge of the other groups. there will be no bais of trust which the systern will need to be successful. Stronger links between the stakeholders in the supply chah could be established by fonning advisory cornmittees, which would include rirpresentatives from al1 groups, to discuss and oversee the implementation and operation of the system. As well, the results of this and similar studies could be made available to each of the groups so that they will know the other stakeholdea' opinions of the proposed system. A potential barrier that was only mentioned by a few of the individuals surveyed is how to deal with the issue of product differentiation. An important part of the communication function of packaging relates to advertising (Landor 1966; Seke 1990; Rzepecki 1991 ; Anonymous 1994a; LeMaire 1994a; Chamberlain 1999). When the suppliers were asked if they could think of ways to reduce packaging, several mentioned the importance of a product's shelf presence as a factor which would limit the arnount of packaging that could be reduced. This perceived need for shelf presence may prove to be a major obstacle to getting suppliers to agree to use a reusable container system. Suppliers may not be willing to switch to a system in which they could not market their product through the packaging that sits on a store shelE A possible solution to this problem is to attach a prominent label to each bulk dispenser. This wouid let the customers know which brand they were buying. There may be benefits to the customer because of this new method of labelling: with everything but the essential packaging eliminated, it will be easier to evaluate and choose a product based on quality rather than on the most attractive packaging. A major shifi in thinking and practice would be required fiom customen and across the grocery supply industry to implement the new method of labelling. If industry-wide cooperation were achieved, no Company would be at an advantage or disadvantage. Another potential banier which was rarely mentioned was the cost of the proposed system. Supermarkets have low gross margins and net profits (Statistics Canada 1987); therefore, they cannot afford to implement a system that would be significantly more costly than the present method of operations. If the proposed system were more costly, it would be unlikely that the supermarkets or supplien would be willing to try it despite the environmental benefits. It appean that cost is a greater concem than environmental issues for the supermarket managers. Al1 three inanagers could think of ways to reduce packaging in relation to cost even if they could noi think of ways in relation to the environment or waste. Responses fiom the managers indicate that they think costs will drive whatever the suppliers do. Although more suppliers cited environrnental issues when asked how packaging concems them, the cost of packaging was the second most popular response. As well, many customers (41%) do not appear willing to pay more for products sold in a reusable container system. Therefore, when planning the system efforts must be made to ensure the system is less costly than traditional distribution systems. Only one supplier thought that converting to a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system would involve substantial costs, although this supplier thought the costs would be major because he believed the entire production system would have to be modified. The fact that cost was hardly mentioned indicates that the stakeholders in the supply chain do not perceive that there would be added costs associated with the proposed system. AAer the initial spending to change the system, costs would likely be kept minimal because the amount of new packaging needed would decline. One manger thought there would be savings because of the reduced need for supplies. The cost savings could then be used as a way to promote the system. If the system were cheaper to use, customers would likely be penuaded to try it. Two of the common concems among employees, maintaining the system and dealing with operational issues, would likely become easier with practice. When responding to the question of whether they would be willing to change their job duties, employees repeatedly commented that changing duties would not be a problem because their jobs are already constantly changing as the supermarkets try new ideas. Therefore, the employees would likely become accustomed to the system fairly quickly. Maintenance could also be made easier by having an enclosed area around the noale on the dispenser which would prevent product fiom dripping on the floor. The fi should not be a problem because the safety/sanitary enclosure described above would prevent people hmgrabbing a handful of the product. Al1 containers, whether reused or new, would be processed at the checkout; therefore, there would be just as much chance of sneaking a new container of product through the checkout without paying as a reusable one. The other concems mentioned by employees, managers, and suppliers can also be managed. Manufacturer resistance could be avoided by establishing partnerships between manufacturers and supermarkets, although Dutilh (1998) Iists limited influence on extemal firms as a barrier to adopting green behaviour. A loss of sales should not occur if products were initially available in both traditional packaging and buik dispensers because customers would have the choice of which way to buy the product. If the prepackaged products were eliminated gradually, customen would become accustomed to the system and would likely not stop purchasing a product simply because it was only available in a bulk dispenser. Most of the baniers described above can be classified as technical in nature. The problerns which are technical cm be solved with relative ease as long as the will to solve those problerns is there. The behavioural barriers, such as customer resistance, are less easy to overcome because changing people's habits and attitudes is difficult. Therefore, these will be the largest barriers to implementing reusable container and bulk product dispenser systems in supermarkets.

5.2 POTENTIAL FOR THE SYSTEM A variety of products was identified as being suitable for a reusable container system. Most of the products chosen are food staples that many people use. The widespread use of these products means there is an opportunity for a significant reduction in packaging. The overall potential for a reduction in environmental impact is even larger because the types of products which could be used are not limited to those mentioned in this study. A number of specialty products, such as gourmet sauces, met the majority of the criteria used to choose the products but could possibly be subject to spoilage because the turnover rate would not be as high for these luxury-type items. These products could be introduced in smailer dispensers after the system was comrnonly accepted. While al1 of the chosen prepackaged-type products are sold in some sort of metal or plastic containers, there are other products that would be suitable which are sold in cardboard boxes. These products (e.g. pancake mix, cereals, rice) would likely not work in the same way as the other products mentioned for buik diqznsen because of their consistency, but could be added to the system in the fom of traditional buk foods. There are other types of products which could reduce their packaging but not exactly in the same way as the other products listed for a reusable container and bulk dispenser system. For example, produc ts such as microwaveable popcom bags, granola bars, pudding cups, and c heese slices could be taken from some sort of bulk container and put into a shopping bag, eliminating the outside box, holder, or plastic wrap. The degree with which the amount of packaging could be reduced will Vary mong the products. For exarnple, al1 of the ketchup packaging could be replaced by reusable containers. but only the box the pudding containers corne in could be eliminated. Whatever the case may be, the potential for the reduction in packaging is high because one container will replace al1 of the new containers which would have ken used during the lifetime of the packaging that is reused. Eighty-two percent of the customen stated they either would (581) or might (24%)participate in the proposed system. With such a high level of stated willingness. there appears to be a strong possibiiity that the proposed system would be accepted by customers. There was also a high level of concem expressed about packaging: 75% of the customers stated that packaging either concemed or somewhat concerned them, with the rnajoi-ity of concems (70%) being about environmental and waste aspects of packüging. This suggests that customers might be open to trying the proposed system if they thought that packaging would be reduced and the environment would benefit. In fact. concem for the environment or waste was the main reason given for wanting to participate. This is consistent with surveys that have found consumen' concem about the environment to be high (Williams 1990: Carson and Moulden 199 1; Sutherland 1993; Mogelonsky 1995). The environmental benefits of the proposed system could be used as an incentive to get custornen to participate. The prospect of having less waste in garbage bags and recycling bins at home might be enough to atuact many customers to use a reusable container system. The low proportion of non-environmentaVwaste concems suggests that these other concems customen have about packaging would not be a barrier to implementing the system. For example, if the rnajority of concems had ken about whether packaging provides convenience. customers would likely not be receptive to the reusable container system. Seventy-nine percent could think of ways that packaging could be reduced or eliminated. This high number indicates that customers have noticed there is too much packaging and that customers have some degree of environmental awareness. As well. the suggestions for reducing packaging included a sizeable number of responses about using bulk bins and reusables, which suggests that the idea of a reusable container system is not completely foreign to the customers. Al1 of these factors may mean that customers would be receptive to using a reusable container system. While the high level of concem for the environment is a positive sign. the question arises of whether this reason would be enough to motivate people to participate. According to the literature, a statement of interest in environmentally-ftiendly behaviour does not necessarily translate into actions (Stilwell et al. 199 1; Noye 1992; Sloan 1993; Wagner 1997). Nonetheless, even if the number of customers who actually participated was somewhat lower than the number who stated they would participate, a large number of customers would likely use the system. Once the system was in place for a period of time. the customers who were not participating at the beginning rnight be convinced to try it. OnIy 18% of the customen stated they would not be willing to participate. If only this percentage were not willing to participate. the opention of the system should not be hindered by a lack of participation because enough people would be using it to make it successful. Among the customers who said they would not participate or that they might participate, inconvenience and concems about health and safety are the main reasons for not wanting to use the system. While health and safety issues are a major concem. these types of problems can likely be addressed and subsequently avoided, as discussed above. Responses from the employee. manager, and supplier surveys indicate that packaging concems each of these groups. This suggests an awareness or concem about packaging which might make them receptive to a system that would reduce the amount of new packaging needed and the amount to be disposed of. Environment and waste-related issues were the most common concem among the suppliers. Although among employees these issues ranked second to quality-related concems, environmental and waste concems were nonetheless identified by a substantial number of employees. These issues were not the main issues with managers either, but they were mentioned. Some of the managers' concems about types of packaging like plastic baling could be resolved by using a reusable container system because this type of packaging would no longer be necessary. The suggestion by one manager to switch to full-service departments as a way to reduce packaging shows that the manager rnight be receptive to the similar component of the proposed system. Al1 seven suppliers could think of ways to reduce packaging, indicating that they thought there were opportunities for reducing packaging and that they have vision io change current packaging practices. The concem about environmental issues and awareness of packaging among stakeholders may indicate a receptiveness to the proposed system. Employees appear willing to opente the system, with 89% stating they would be willing to change their job duties if a reusable container system were implemented. Forty-eight percent of employees thought their jobs would either be easier (25%) or remain the same (13%). Unwillingness to try the proposed system should not be an issue for these employees. In contrast, the 46% who thought their jobs would be more difficult following the implemrntation of a reusable container system might be less willing to try the system. The nearly equal split in these answers makes drawing conclusions about employee willingness difficult. Efforts should be made to ensure that employees' jobs would not become more difficult and that employees are then made awue that a reusable container system would not involve an increased workload. Educational prograrns for employees are considered important in implernenting a waste management plan (Xerox 1992: Buy Recycled Campaign 1994). If a program for educating employees were used, this would further reduce employee unwillingness. Although the varying results from the employee surveys are not conclusive about whether employees would be willing to operate the system, it does appear that employee unwillingness would not be a barrier.

5.3 FEASIBILITY OF THE SYSTEM Almost two thirds of the employees thought the system was feasible (30%)or might be feasible (35%). Thirty-five percent thought the system was not feasible. Concems about customer resistance was the most comrnon response (1 1 responses) among employees who thought the system rnight be feasible. The other concems were operational issues, maintenance and potential mess, cleanliness of containers, theft, and health issues. The main issue for those who thought the system was not feasible was maintenance and the extra time involved. The other issues mentioned were health or sanitary concems, managing tare, theft, logistical issues, marketing problems, and safety. Al1 of these issues can al1 be dealt with, as discussed above. Customer resistance, the third most popular response among those who thought the system was not feasible, may be an issue that is not as easily addressed because behavioural obstacles are more difficult to overcome than issues that are technical in nature. For the question for the employees on feasibility, there was a statistically significant relationship between the responses and the supermarket. At supermarket C only rwo respondents thought it was feasible, compared to nine and ten at the other stores. It is difficult to develop theories about what this difference means. This question is the only one where there were dependent variables, so the difference mny sirnply be an anomaly. However, one potential theory about why these responses differed at supermarket C is that the morale of the employees seemed much lower at supermarket C than at the other two stores. This could possibly result in employees king less open- minded about new ideas because they might not be as dedicated or as satisfied with their jobs. There is no readily apparent explanation why the concems regarding the system differed among the supermarkets. One of the three managers thought the system was feasible, one did not know whether it would be feasible, and the other thought it was not feasible. The main concem from the managers was tare. As discussed above, this issue could likely be managed fairly simply. Three out of seven suppliers thought the changes would be feasible and another thought the changes would be feasible for some products. These numbers and the comments received suggest that this system is worthy of more detailed investigation. One supplier thought implementation would be easy because a similar system is already in place for the company's clients in the food service industry; this comment is encouraging because it suggests that the system couid work. This supplier and sirnilar companies could be consulted for advice on how to operate a bulk dispenser system. On the other end of the range of opinions, the response of the supplier who thought the entire supply system would need to be retooled is discouraging. If a complete overhaul of operations is necessary, suppliers would not likely adopt the proposed system. However, new products and packaging designs are introduced on a regular basis and the supply chain seems to react quickly to these changes, which would likely involve some retooling. Some of the other logistical concems mentioned such as preventing dispensen from dripping, labelling products, and marketing could likely be resolved fairly easily, as discussed above. The issue of food spoilage could be dealt with by developing appropriate containers. The two supplien who thought it was not feasible raise some doubt that the system could be implemented without many problems. The one supplier who had some reservations about the feasibility commented that implementation would depend on customer demand. Since the proposed system does not appear to be an idea that customers have thought of, this demand is not likely to occur. Companies will need to take the initiative. This comment from the supplier about customer demand is another indicator that suppliers see customers as driving the food supply chain. Based on the responses to the questions which direct!y inquire about the feasibili ty as well as the baniers io and potential for the system which were identified by the responses to other questions, it appears that a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system is feasible.

5.4 SUhlMARY Among al1 interviewees, an awareness and concem about packaging seems to be high, indicating that customers, employees, managers, and supplien may be receptive to a system that would reduce packaging. Potential problems with the proposed system were identified by the interviewees. Many had concems with heaith aspects of the proposed system. These health issues, while senous, cm probably be managed. Other problems identified, such as tare and maintenance, could likely be resolved easily. The barriers to the system which may be the most difficult to overcome are customer resistance and perceived inconvenience because these issues are not technical in nature but involve changes in behaviour and attitude instead. However, since 82% of the customers said they would or might participate, this may not be as large of a problem as the other groups believed. Responses frorn employees, managers, and suppliers suggest that customers are perceived as dnving the food chain. This means that supplien and supermarket personnel will not proceed with a new system unless they believe that customen would approve. Again. since 82% of customers said they would or might participate, customer approval of the system should not be a bmier. The degree of employee willingness is difficult to accuntely gauge because it varies with the question. However, the responses indicate that employee resistance should not be a major obstacle to the implementation of a reusable container system. Educational prograrns for employees should help reduce any employee unwillingness. Responses indicate that the system would not be successful if it were more costly. Efforts must be made to ensure a reusable container system is cheaper for customen and inexpensive to operate for supplien and supermarkets The decrease in costs due to reduced supplies and disposal needs could be passed on to customers and used as an incentive to participate. Although possible problerns were identified, the overall reception and judgement of feasibility indicate that a reusable container system is feasible. With 60% of al1 packaping used for food (Robertson 199 1; Stilwell et al. l99 1) there is potential for significant reductions in waste if the system were impiemented. 6 - CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 CONCLUSION Although packaging provides many important hnctions, its current use has a variety of negative impacts on the environment. A potential solution for reducing these impacts is a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system in supennarkets. The hypothesis Inlalementing a reirsable cmztainer and bulk ~roducrdispenser system in sirpermarkets is feasible was tested in this thesis. Based on the results of the study segments and the literature review, the hypothesis was accepted. The hypothesis was tested through a multi-step study involving three supermarkets in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The first step, the identification of products that would be suitable for a reusable container and bulk dispenser system, resulted in a list of products that could be used. Some of these products such as mustard, coffee, and typical products from existing bulk sections could likely be introduced into a reusable container system without much difficulty, while other products such as pancake mix, rice, and granola bars might require a substantial marketing effort. Once customers were in the habit of using a reusable container system and supermarket employees were accustomed to operating it, the number of products used could likely be expanded from the list compiied for the purposes of this study. An examination of health and other regulations that could possibly affect the use of a reusable container system identified no regulations that would prohibit the use of the proposed system. The custorners surveyed for this study appeared willing to participate in a reusable container systern. A large proportion of the customers stated they would use such a system, although the nurnber of customen who would actually participate might be less than this because a statement of interest in environrnentally fiiendly behaviour does not necessarily translate into action. Even if the number were reduced, however, enough participating customen would likely still remain to make the system successfùl. A high level of awareness of packaging and a high level of concem about environmental and waste aspects of packaging also suggest that customea would be open to using the system. The stated willingness of customers to participate in a reusable container system should be made known to employees, managers, and suppliers because these groups appear to perceive customers as the force driving the food distribution chain. If they knew about the customers' willingness to participate, these stakeholders might be more receptive to a reusable container system. Employee unwillingness does not appear to be a major bamer, with most ernployees stating they would be willing to change their job duties. As with the customers, employees appear to be aware of and concemed about packaging, which should make them receptive to a reusable container system. Although employees did identify some concems with a reusable container system, almost hvo-thirds of the employees thought the system was or might be feasible. The concems expressed, primarily regarding the issues of health and tare, must be addressed but do not appear to be insurmountable. The managers of the three supermarkets also expressed concerns about health issues and the problem of dealing with tare. Suppliers appeared to be concemed with packaging and were aware of environmental and waste issues, suggesting that supplien may also be open to participating in a reusable container system. The majonty of supplien thought the system would be feasible. One supplier stated that the Company already uses bulk dispensers for its food service industry clients. This existing system is an indication that the proposed system could work. A number of concems regarding a reusable container system were expressed by the decision makers in the food distribution chain that were surveyed in this study, but these problems seem to be solvable. The concem about tare could be handled with a bar- code sticker system that would convey to the cornputer at the cash register how much to subtract for the weight of the container. Controlling the cleanliness of containers could be achieved by a container-cleaning system at the entrance of supermarkets. The prevention of contamination could be accomplished by incorporating an enclosed area around the dispensing nozzle on the bulk dispenser which would prevent customers and containers fiom directly touching the nozzle. Inconvenience, which was the top reason given by the customen who stated they would not participate, might be a more difficult obstacle to overcome. According to polls and demographics, the need for convenience is a major issue in grocery shopping behaviour. Technologicaî solutions would not solve the problem of perceived inconvenience; instead, a change in attitudes and behaviour would be required. Efforts could be made to make the system as convenient as possible and then to educate people about environmental issues and the benefits of a reusable container system. Given the ingenuity and technology that have allowed man to walk on the moon and computers to fit in the palm of a person's hand, developing solutions to the expressed concems and other potential problems should not be impossible or even difficult. Designing appropnate bulk dispensers and a convenient system of operations would simply take vision, will, and dedication. Although there is little written on reusable containers, there is evidence from the literature that the system would be feasible and desirable. The use of reusable containers is not unprecedented because reusing containers was a cornmon practice until the middle of the 20th century. The few bulk systems and dispensen that are currently successful are evidence that the reusable container and bulk product dispenser system could work. Many problems with packaging discussed in the literature, such as disposai problems, excessive use, litter, use of scarce resources, and costs and environmental impacts associated with each stage of packaging's life cycle, would be overcome by using the system. Benefits to greening a corporation such as cost swings in production, minimizing inefficiencies, reducing purchasing and waste removal costs, improving employee morale, and improving the company's image could likely be achieved through the implementation of a reusable container and bulk dispenser system. While recycling is a better waste management strategy than landfilling, the benefits derived from using reusable containers would be greater than those for recycling systems because of the greater expense and impacts involved in the handling and reprocessing of recyclable matenals. By having the customea remthe containers to the stores rather than having a collection system, the impacts associated with collection would be eliminated. The proposed system would rely primarily on plastic containers. The advantages of plastic such as its lightweight nature, durability, and the conservation of energy and water in its manufacture would be maxirnized, while its disadvantages such as the consumption of non-renewable resources and its current large contribution to the volume of landfills would be diminished by reusing the containers. The study segments and literature review suggest that a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system would be feasible. Given this evidence, the question arises of why a system like this is not already being used. The proposed method of product delivery is not one that appears to have been given much thought either in the literature or among key decision makers in the food chain. One expianation is that thinking beyond existing practices is difficult for most people. As well, habits and attitudes can be very difficult to change. The current attitudes and behaviour of Nonh Americans are the main reasons for the environmental problems that plague Our society today. For a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system to be successfu1, effon would be needed to change these attitudes and behaviour before the system would be accepted. Alternatively, if a reusable container system were implemented, its availability to supermarket shoppers might help change the way they think about their behaviour and current retail practices. Whatever approach is taken, the changes in thinking and behaviour are necessary to reduce or eliminate the problems which threaten the health of the environment.

6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Before a reusable container system can be implemented, further investigation is required into several potential impediments. Research should be conducted into the issue of tare, developing a system that is convenient and sanitary, and developing a cleaning system to ensure the containers are free of bacteria and other contaminants. A further exploration of customer attitudes and behaviour should dso be undertaken. Gndual impiementation of the system would likely be the most successful approach because it would allow time for customers, employees, managers, and suppliers to adjust their behaviour without being overwhelmed. To facilitate the transition, products could be introduced in stages, with those products that are the easiest to adapt to a reusable container system being introduced fint. Some products, such as coffee and water, already use bulk dispensers to some extent. These products could be introduced first because few changes would be required except to undertake promotional carnpaigns to encourage people to obtain these products in reusable containers. Products such as mustard, ketchup, and relish might also be easy to introduce because these products are currently distributed in bulk dispensers for the food service industry. Products traditionally sold in boxes could be among the latter products introduced into the system because the switch to reusable containers would require a greater change in attitudes and behaviour (e.g. changing to piastic containers from boxes). In the beginning there could be a choice of whether to buy the product prepackaged or in a reusable container so that customers would not be alienated. The system could start as a small-scale pilot project at the ihree stores used in this study and then be expanded elsewhere. Education should be used to promote the system and its benefits because education of the stakeholders in the grocery supply chain will be necessary if the system is to be successful. Although most customers stated they would participate, the literature suggests that customers' stated opinions differ fiom their actions. Some of the variables suggested by Dembkowski (1998) that affect the degree to which behavior diffen from stated attitudes are the perceived own responsibility, perceived environmental relevance of consumption, perceived consumer effectiveness, and perceived environmental relevance of an individual product or a single action. An educational carnpaign should be undertaken to teach customers that their actions in the supermarket have effects on the environrnent. This would hopefully convince customers that they should use the reusable container and bulk product dispenser system. While it is important to convince customers that they should ûy the system, it is also important to educate the other stakeholders as well. If the whole chah of supply were enlightened about environmental issues and the benefits of the proposed system, there would be less resistance of a particular group or groups toward the system. A reusable container and bulk product dispenser system would incorporate the concept of sustainable production and consumption and would reduce the negative environmental consequences of packaging use. The idea for this system should be pursued because it appears to be feasible, and it would provide an alternative method of supplying grocenes that would have less negative impacts on the environment. APPENDIX A Interview auestions

Questiott s for customers: 1. Does packaging concem you? If so, in what way? 2. Can you think of ways that packaging could be reduced or eliminated? 3. Would you be willing to participate in a reusable container and bulk product dispenser systern? -if yes, what do you think sorne of the benefits would be? i f no, for what reason(s)? 4. Would you be willing to pay more for products sold this way?

Questio 11 s for employees: 1. Does packaging concem you? If so, in what way? 2. What kind of packaging cm be reduced or eliminated? 3. What types of initiatives could be undertaken to reduce packaging? 4. Do you think that a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system is feasible? 5. Would you be willing to change some of your job duties if a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system was implemented? 6. Do you think your job would be easier or more difficult following the implementation of the system? 7. Do you have any health and safety concems with a reusable container and bulk product dispenser system? 8. What other concems or logistical issues can you identiQ?

Qzrestiottsfor store managers: 1. Does packaging concern you? If so, in what way? 2. What kind of packaging is the most problematic? 3. What kind of packaging can be reduced or eliminated? 4. What types of initiatives could be undertaken to reduce packaging? 5. Do you see opportunities for reducing costs associated with packaging? 6. 1s a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system a feasible option? 7. Do you think this system would Save money or cost money? 8. Do you think this system would involve more time for employees? 9. Do you have any health or safety concems with this system? 10. What other concems or logistical issues cm you identiQ? 11. Do you think the suppliers would agree to do this? Why or why not?

Questiorisfor suppliers: 1. Does packaging concem you? If so, in what way? 2. Cm you think of ways that packaging could be reduced or eliminated? 3. What logistics would be involved in using a refillable container and bulk product dispenser system? 4. What is the feasibility of the changes that you would need to make? 5. Do you think this system would Save money or cost money? 6. Do you think the store managers and employees would be able and willing to operate this type of system? Why or why not? APPENDIX B lnformed consent forms Informed consent form - ernployees:

My name is Angela Birch and 1 am a student in the Master of Environmental Studies progarn at Dalhousie University. For my thesis, which is entitled "Reducing packaging in the grocery supply chain: a program for reusable containers in supermarkets", 1 am trying to determine the feasibility of implementing a prograrn in which customers bring reusable containers to the grocery store to be filled fiom bulk product bins by the customer or from over the counter by employees.

1 have permission from the store manager to conduct a survey of employees. Participation in the interview is voluntary. You cm refuse to answer any of the questions if you wish.

Your answers to the survey questions will be recorded by hand by me and statistically analysed to help determine the feasibility of a reusable container system. Your answen will be kept confidential. Your name will not appear on any data collection forms, nor will it appear in the reporting of any data or information about this study.

Thank you for your help in completing this project.

Sincerely,

Angela Birch

1 (please priut) consent to participate in this inteniiew on reusable container and bulk product dispenser prograrn.

Participant's signature

Date lnformed consent form - customers:

Hello! My name is Angela Birch and 1 am a student in the Master of Environmental Studies program at Dalhousie University. For my thesis, which is entitled "Reducing packaging in the grocery supply chain: a program for reusable containers in superrnarkets", 1 am trying to determine the feasibility of implementing a program in which customers bring reusable containers to the grocery store to be filled from bulk product bins by the customer or fiom over the counter by employees.

Participation in this short swey is voluntary. You may refùse to answer any of the questions if you choose.

Your answers to the survey questions will be recorded by hand by me and statistically analysed to help determine the feasibility of a reusable container system. Your answers will be kept confidential. Your name will not appear on any data collection forms, nor will it appear in the reporting of any data or information about this study.

Thank you for your help in completing this project.

S incerely,

Angela Birch

I (piease prznt) consent to participate in this interview on reusable container and buik product dispenser program.

Participant's signature

Date APPENDIX C n customer interviews Total ( /1201 Yes = 75 -environmental/ waste concerns = 56 -other concerns = 25 Somewhat = 15 -environmental/ waste concerns = 12 -other concems = 4 No = 30 Yes = 95 -reduce double packaging = 25 -recyclables/cornpostables = 18 -reduce arnount/excess = 16 -bdk = 16 -reusables = 14 -replace with other/less material (e.g. bags for boxes) = 10 -reduce Styrofoam = 3 -di fferent delivery system = 3 -legislation/regulations= 2 -reduce toxic materials = 2 -reduce plastic = 1 No = 25 Yes = 70 -environmental/ waste reasons = 58 -cheaper = 22 -get quantity you want = 3 -1imit impulse shopping = 1 more hygienic = 1 -casier = 1 -saves moving from one container to another = 1

-health and safety concems = 8 -doesn9tsee need = 1

rvhy: -environrnentaVwaste reasons = 20 -cheaper = 4 -improved food quality = 1 -socially expected = 1 why not: -inconvenience = 13 -sanitary/healthconcems = 7 -quality concems = 2 -not for some things = 2 4. Yes = 25 No = 40 Mavbe = 18 Little Bit = 16 h . APPENDIX D Data from em~loveeinterviews overall Employee totaIs (169) Yes = 43 -quality of packaging concems = 27 -environmentaVwaste concems = 20 Somewhat = 5 -environmentaVwaste concems = 2 -quality of packaging concerns = 2

No=21 Yes = 42 -overpac kaging = 15 -double packaging = 9

-recyc lab les/compostables = 4 -shipping packaging = 4 -reusables = 2 -substitute materials = 2 -buIk = 1 -more concentrates = 1 -di fferent delivery = 1 -do not package as much products that don? sel1 well = 1 No = 27 Yes = 29

-recyclables/compostables = 5 -different delivery = 5

-substitute materials = 3 -manufacturers' initiative = 2 -m&e more durable = 1 No = 40 Yes =21 MavbeNes with some reservations = 24 -customer resistance = 1 1 -1ogistics = 5

-only for certain things = 4 -cleanliness of container = 3 -thefi = 3 -health issues = 2 No = 24 -maintenance/too time-consuming = 1 1 -health/sanitary concems = 7 -customer resistance = 6 -tare = 5 -thefi = 3 -not for al1 things = 2 -1ogistical issues = 1 -marketing = 1 -safety = 1 Yes =6l Yes but with reservations = 5 No=3 Easier = 17 More difficult = 32 Sarne = t 6 Other = 4 Yes = 46 -cleanliness of containers = 25 -bacteria/contarnination = t 8 -sanitary/touching dispenser = 13 -safety = 1 No = 23 Yes = 29 -customer resistance = 9 -health issues = 7 -maintenance = 5 -logistics = 5 -tare = 4 -manufacturer resistance = 2 -cost = 2 -1oss of sales = 1 -thefi = 1 No = 40 ployee data - by store Supermarket A (126) Supermarket B (122) Supermarket C (121) Yes = 15 Yes = 14 Yes = 14 -environmental/waste concerns = 7 -environmental/wasie concems = 6 -environmental/waste concerns = 7 -quaMy of pûckuging concems = 8 -quiility of package concerns = 10 -quaMy of package concerns =9 Somewhût = 3 No=8 Somewhat = 2 -environmental concems = 2 -quality of packaging concerns = 2 -cos1 = 1 No=5 No=8 Yes = 15 Yes = 13 Yes = 14 - double piickaging = 2 -double packrging = 2 -products that are unnecessarily bagged - packaging thut is much greater thün -0verpackaging = 4 = 5 product volume = 4 -feuse = 1 -double pücküging = 5 -shipping puckaging = 3 -plastic = 4 -non-recyclables/non-compostables= 3 -plastics = 2 -Styrofoam = 1 -di fferent delivery =1 -Styrofoam = 4 -bdk = 1 -excessive packaging = 2 -substituting for reusÿbles = 1 -recyclables = 1 -shipping pac kaging =1 -more conccntrates = 1 -substitute materials = 2 No=7 -do not package as much deli products No=9 which don? sel1 well = 1 No= 11 -need it - -- Yes = II Yes = 10 Yes = 8 -bdk = 2 -bulk = 2 -recyclables = 2 -recyclables/compostables = 3 -reusables = 2 -bulk = 1 -change mode of service = 2 -reduce = 2 -reusables = 2 -reusables = 2 -di fferent delivery = 2 -differeni delivery = 1 -manufucturers' initiative = 1 -substitute materials = 2 -substitute materials = 1 -reduce pückuging üt tüke-out = 1 -manufücturers' initiative = 1 -make more durable = 1 No= 15 No= 12 No= 13 Yes = 9 Ycs = 10 Yes = 2 MaybeISome reservations = 12 MaybeIYcs with some reservations = 5 MaybeIYcs with some reservütions = 7 -customer resis~üncelnotconvenient = -customcr resistünce = 1 -liedth issues = 3 -cleünliness of container = 3 -logistics = 4 -mriintenünce/messy = 3 -would work for certain things = 2 -messy = 1 -not for al1 things = 2 No=7 -customer resistance = 3 -pricing/ture = 1 -customcr resistance = 1 -thefi = 3 No=5 -maintenance = 4 No= 12 -customer resistance/not convenient = -tare = 1 -heül t hlsüni türy = 5 3 -cleanliness of contüiner = 1 -too much time = 4 -maintenance = 3 -marketing = l -tare =4 -logistical issues = 1 -theft = 3 -not for al1 things = 2 -snfety = 1 -customer resistance = 2 Yes = 24 Yes= 18 Yes = 19 Depends = 1 Yes but with reservütions = 3 Yes but with reservations = 1 No= 1 No= 1 No= 1

. ------Easier = 10 ~Üs~er= 5 ~as~er= 2 More difficult = 14 More difficult = 9 More difficult = 9 Same = 2 Same = 6 Sürne = 8 Other = 2 Other = 2 Yes = 16 Yes = 15 Yes = 15 -sani twy concems (touching -s;mitary/touching dispenser = 2 -cleünliness of containers = 8 dispenser) = 7 -cleanliness of container = 1 1 -saniiary/touching of dispenser = 4 -cleanliness of containers = 6 -bacteridcontamination = 6 -bacteridcontamination = 5 -safety = 1 No= 10 No=6 Yes = 14 Yes = 7 Yes = 8 -customer resistancc = 5 -customer resistünce = 3 -sanitarylheülth issues = 1 -munufacturer resistance = 1 -sanitüry issues = 2 -tare = 2 -maintenance = 4 -müintcnancc = 1 4oss of marketing = I -tare = 2 -loss of sales = 1 -theft = 1 -other logistics =4 -avüilability of containers = 1 -cost = 3 -hcülth issues = 4 No= 15 -customer resistüiice = 1 No= 12 No= 13 APPENDIX E from mananer interview! Superstore IGA So bevs Yes Yes Yes -dictates how product is -cost of package and its -amount of work displayed for sale removal -handling of it -probIem because of -damage in chah of -excess di fferent recycling SUPP~Y -comments from customers about waste and environment -ten-pack dnnk units: -doesn' t reall y have -heavy plastic: doesn't refund isn't dictated by problems bale as well, more zovemmeni = customer damage than cardboard cornplaints and confusion -mu1ti~acks -warehouse: sugar in -not at supermarket bales - plastic is Ievel: needed for sanitary unnecessary reasons at this level -double wrap~ed -eventually go back to -encourage cardboard full service bakery, go boxes to handle groceries bac k to old-fashioned -paper bags service -cereal: use reseahble -training: to package 1/3 -suppliers could look at bags instead more groceries into flat what they're doing: use bottom bag, but bands instead of plastic customers don? like it -feasible for buk food- -weighing scale: product no section: reduce cost and and tare - customers -health issues: open plastics paying for package products, contamination -big project for entire -difficult going through store cash, no tare -not for entire store: -massive job of some products need processing pac kaging -would work well for some things -water bottles: system currently being used -No Frills charged for bags -Save: store would buy in -de pends larger units, decrease in -cost would be at front bags and other supplies end (cashiers) -Save ------initially yes: set up time -no: customec would do -yes required, would have to most of work double bulk capacity -weigh -but sales increase would -would work in solely mean negligible costs bulk store (not self service) - -- -contamination -cross-contamination -contamination -cost back to store if (larvae, moths, insects) -cleanliness of containers customers complained -if container was used about product after a long tirne at home -would have to be rules, nuidelines -unifonnity: tare factor at -pnmarily on no register so customer manufacturer -tare would be a big part, wouldn't pay -they have corne a long scales -government is on top of way: a lot cornes in tares reusable now, recycling -tare is not easily programs managd: can't put three tares on an item -cornputer system can't handle it Yes Yes -supplien would agree if -interested in profit - -cost less for them they just had to provide would have to look at it big container and then from a cost perspective store had responsibi lity -in-store promotions: and cost wouldn't have to push produc t -would depend on the manufacturer and their respect for the environment a from su~~liernterviews Heinz Sunrise Foods Clover Group ED Smith SunRype Lever Ponds Nes t lé Yes Yes Yes No Yes Very much so Yes -müke it -land fiil issues -increrises cost: -not for him in -huge concern -al ways -responsi ble for consumer -public opinion delivery - pay purchüsing to consumer continuing to Company friendl y (as a business r'er kg. -pac kaging goods evaluate packaging -cos[ and person): -storage: more waste is a companies -environmental -changes al1 the effectiveness public's pac kagi ng coqmate -functions: reasons: have time best for lowest opinion müy mukes it more concern - try to present the made n lot of -trend: getting price noi be based on difficult reduce product in a i mprovements out of -environmental fact e.g. what's packaging plensing or box board into (use rec ycled) best for food through whole useful way to flexible plastic safety) system, the consumer, pac kagi ng; inbound and used for the going to take a out bound, not storage and few years for just what iransportation customers to customer sees of the product, accept and protect the -glass is proûuct (and expensive - the consumer) breakage, -costs safety, nssociated with transportation. packaging heavy; (using or customer- handling the related issue package t hrough manufacturing and each point

but fixing on aren't doing the pückaging's pückaging for püc kagi ng shelf is smaller same thing?) requirerncnts things like department has -hoincowner -ED Smith uses (see übove) or Dove and türget for buys big glass and reductions müy Lever 2000 reduct ions plastic -hard to end up costing soaps, but this -how much can reduce an y more pncküging is you squeeze more -some needed for the out of a piickaging is moisturizhg package? Can overdone ingredients only do that for because of so long before marketing; this it affects the is where integnty of the majority of package, lose reductions can consumer trust be made (lost sales greater than amount saved in reduction of packagi ng) change parts -problems: -would have to -change format -bdk food -not set up to -not a major (this would -store in have of distri bution systems do not do this: mükc deal have to be country: would consistency in to customers = have üs long of own bottles -powders, new) to do they have terms of signi ficünt duration or (although soluble coffee steps enough dispenser six issue durability as industrial pliint -develop a nice -would have to t umover? for pülleis -food safeiy: pac kaged in London, ON container to try advertise thüt -ketchup: has -who is going -ditty goods due to its sen& product to get this new way is to be to control containers exposure to in larger customers to safe and better refrigerüted -extra cost -who would contamination. contai ncrs) reuse once opened, - wouldn't be responsible -how to keep -major change, -systems in this would use eliminatc cos[ -1abeling: label sanitüry retooling stores would be power (would of disposables dedarations -ei t hcr small -have to gel tougher to it help overüll?) (e.g. peanuts - volume and OK from stores change -more realistic contamination) refrigerated or -womed about -suppl ying to rec yclelreuse products which accidents wouldn't be a -what hüppens naturally do not (product problem - if there is a lend dri pping) alreody do i t food siifety themselvçs to -their bottks for food service problem? who microbiologicrl are ulrerdy industry (super is responsi ble? spoilage. rec yclable: this sacs, -bulk is not the -logistics for is best way dispensers) unswer, e.g. keeping Iürge -hard seIl Bulk Barn: volumes of pricing is not spoi lüble necessari l y product cold cheaper (bags und clean. are free and -how to on1y one size) physicülly deal with large heavy containers in the store, and keeping thern cleün and free of micro grow t h -dry goods more sui table for ihis type of environment. but need to

then the costs and damüges which you would incur as a result of compromising the benefits provided by the pac kagi ng, i t would be more costly Would be a Wouid have to Yes Not likely Probübly No -Able? Yes. tough seIl be money in it -will eventually -grocery stores general l y -wouldn't be Willing? -consumers for them and have to want to be opposed to this easy What's in ir for don't like big what customers -will bc evident efficient in type of system -places li ke them? bott les want with landfills their shelf unless there Body Shop -forrn -tirne crunch is -elhinate costs service was an obvious could partnership what hinders and large with major reuse customer chains - offer -business built demand deal, sharing on self-service -grocery stores cost to get ülreüdy deüling dispensing unit with into store, competi ti ve decision to and cost issues. participate This system would have to would require corne from the für more head office of handling and the work for the supermarket

Chi-square test results Custorner survevs x 2 values critical values of 2 reject hypothesis? 2.040 9.488 , QI cannot reiect -- Q2 3.830 5.991 cannot reject Q3 2.068 9.488 cannot reject 1 Q1 1 4.200 1 12.592 1 cannot reject

Ern~loveesurvevs x2 values critical values of 2 reject hypothesis?

01 3.123 9.488 cannot reiect-.

a2 0.438 5.99 1 cannot reject * 0.240 5.99 1 cannot reject Q3 -- - Q4 1 1.578 9.488 reject Qs 2.028 9.488 cannot reject Q6 11.780 12.592 cannot reject Q7 0.543 5.99 1 cannot reject Q8 2.567 5.99 1 cannot reiect WORKS CITED Abraham, M. 1992. Consumers, environment and development: an oveniew. [n Co~nltniersand the Environment: Proceedings of the IOCU Forum on Sustainable Coiisirmption Rio de Janeiro 4 June 1992. International Organization of Consumers Unions: Penang, Malaysia.

Adamson, V. no date. Breaking the Barriers: A Study of Legislative and Economic Barrievs tu Ii~lcilrstrialWaste Reduction and Recycling. Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation/The Pollution Probe Foundation: Toronto, ON.

Alexander, T., and D. Asselin. 1972. The packaging problem is a cmof worms. Reprinted with permission. FORTUNE Magazine. In Packaging and Environmental Issues. 199 1. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Alreck, P.L., and R. Settle. 1995. 77re Survey Reseorch Handbook (Second Edition). Invin McGraw-Hill: Boston, MA.

Ananthakrishnan, S. 1992. The role of comparative testing and rating. In Consirniers und the Divironnietit: Proceedings of the IOCU Fonim on Sustaznoble Consumption Rio de Janeiro 4 June 1992. International Organization of Consumers Unions: Penang, Malaysia.

Andersson, K., et al. 1998. Life cycle assessrnent (LCA) of food products. Doktorsovl~andlitlgarVid Chalmers Tekriiskn Hogskola 1416, 1-59.

Anonyrnous. no date. Precycle: a new concept in source reduction. Repnnted with permission. Resource RecycIing. in Packaging und Environmental Issues. 1991. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Anonymous. 1989a. Consumer survey gives packagers power. Reprinted with permission. Packaging Winter 1989. In Packaging and Environmental lssiies. 1991. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Anonymous. 1989b. Packaging's effect on the future of the food industry. Food Engineering June 1989,64.

Anonymous. 1989c. Materials survey reveals changes. Reprinted with permission. Packaging September 1989. In Packaging and Environmentai Issues. 1991. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Anonymous. 199 1. Some disposable products may have ecological advantages, says study. Jozrrnal of Air Waste Management Association 41(4), 400. Anonymous. 1993. Profiles: Bolands [GA. In Business Meets the Environmental Challenge: Essays with Profiles of Nova Scoria Companies. Y. Friesen, R. Cote, and D. Patton (eds.). Lancelot Press: Hantsport, NS.

Anonymous. 1994a. Packaging Strategies '94 Conference focuses on packaging's identity in the '90s. Food Engineering June 1994,73-75.

Anonymous. 1994b. Review of Case Reopened: INFORM Reassesses Refillable Bottles. INFORM Reports 14 (2-3). 1-5.

Anonymous. 1994c. Bottled up. The Econornist 333(7894), 69.

Anonymous. 1995. Packaging: toothpaste. Warmer Bulletin 44, 19-20.

Anon ymous. 1998. Products & literature. Food Technology 52(2). 79.

Ashton, R., and G. Erickson. 1989. The big squeeze. Reprinted with permission. Packagirzg August 1989. In Packaging and Environmental Issues. 199 1. Rzepec ici, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Bender, M. 1975. Package Design and Social Change. AMACOM: New York. NY.

Berenson, M.L., D.M.Levine, and D. Rindskopf. 1988. Applied Statistics: A First Coiirse. Pren tice-Hall. Inc.: Englewood Cli ffs, NJ.

Broydo, L. 1996. Truth in a jar. Motlier Jones SeptemberJOctober 1996, 19.

B u y Rec yc led Campaign. 1994. An Ounce of Prevention: Straîegiesfor Ciitting Puckaging Waste. Californians Against Waste Foundation: no place given.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCh4E). 1990. The Narional Packaging Prorocol. Canadinn Council of Ministers of the Environment: Ottawa, ON.

Canüdian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME).1992a. Canadian Code of Preferred Packaging Practices. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: Winnipeg, MB.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1992b. Packaging Audits and Packuging Rediic~ionWorkplans. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: Winnipeg, MB.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1992~.The Technical Basis for the National Packaging Protocol: Siimmary Report. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: Winnipeg, MB. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). 1998. National Packaging Protocof1996 Milestone Report. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment: Ottawa, ON.

Carson, P.. and J. Moulden. 199 1. Green Is Gold: Business Talking to Business about rlze Environnzental Revolution. HarpeCollins Publishers Ltd.: Toronto, ON.

Chamberlain, A. 1999. Something to chew on.. .supermarket psych-out. http://www.tcsdk 12.org/nutrition/somethingtochew.htm

Clayton, D. 1993. The role of the consumer in encouraging environmentally friendly business practices. In Business Meets the Environmental Challenge: Essays with Profiles of Nova Scotia Companies. Y.Friesen, R. Cote, and D. Patton (eds.). Lancelot Press: Hanisport. NS.

Clumpner, G., and S. Dehn. 1991. The "non-econornics" of rnandated source reduction and rec yc li ng prograrns. In Proceedings Wastetech '9UCanadian Waste Management Con&erence. Environment Canada: Hull. QC.

Cooper. T. 1997. Creating an economic infrastructure for sustainable product design. In Cer~trefor Sustainable Design (UK)/et al. zndhitemational Conference Proceedings: Torvards Sustainable Prodiict Design. Royal College of ?: London, UK. 1- 11.

Coun tryman, L. 1993. Implementing a consumer waste reduction strategy. In Solid Waste Association of North America 4" Anniial International Recycling Symposium Feb. 22-25, 27-35.

Demb kowski, S. 1998. The environmentai value-attitude-system modei: undentanding the divergence between stated environmental consciousness and oven consumer behaviour. Eco-Management and Aiiditing 5,62-74.

Dimi trova, 1. 1987. Physical distri bution today. In Modem Processing, P ackaging and Distribittion Systems for Food. F. Paine (ed.). Blackie and Son Ltd.: London, UK. 133- 145.

Duming, A. 1992. How Much Is Enough? The Consumer Society and the Future of the Eaniz. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.: New York, NY.

Dutilh, C. 1998. Unilever: change management in food industry. In Managing a Muterial Worid: Perspectives in Industrial Ecology. P. Vellinga, F. Berkhout, J. Gupta (eds.). Kluwer Acadernic Publishers: Boston, MA., 35 1-358.

Eden, S. 1993. Constructing environmental responsibility: perceptions from retail business. Geoforum 24(4), 41 1-421. Environment Canada. 1998. What is life cycle management? http://www.ec.gc.ca/ecocycle/english/whatislcm. html

Environment Canada. 1999. An environmental citizen.. .who me? http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/udo/who.html

Erickson, G. 1989a. The consumer's opinion. Repnnted with permission Packaging August 1989. In Packaging and Environmentul Issaes. 199 1. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Enckson, G. 1989b. When less is more. Reprinted with permission. Packaging August 1989. In Packaging and Environmental Issues. 199 1. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). Univenity of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Ferrante. M. 1997a. Packaging innovation: investing in a winner. Food Engineering May 1997,43-49.

Ferrante, M. 1997b. A need for speed and a cry for convenience. Food Engineering October 1997.89-96.

Fems, D., C. S hanklin, and R. Flores. 1994. Solid waste management in foodservice. Food Teclznology March 1994, 110- 1 15.

Figenshau, C. 1993. Refillables. Rain XN(3),24-29.

Fil bee, M. 1992. A Study of the Canadian Food Industry 's Response to the Environmental Concems on Packaging. Saint Mary's Univenity: Halifax. NS.

Goen. R., R. Steele, L. Somogyi, T. Parks, and N. Fishman. 1977. ï?ze Potential for Reusable. Homogeneous Corltainers. Stanford Research Institute: Menlo Park, CA.

Gold, A. 1989. Dealing with pollution before, not after, it happens. Reprinted with permission. The New York Times Company. In Packuging and Environmental Issues. 199 1. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). Univenity of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Green Seal. 1999. Green Seal of approval and list of standards. http://www.greenseal.org/howto.htm

Gnffi ths Muecke Associates/Porter Dillon Ltd. 199 1. Discussion Paper #7: Action Plan for bnplementation of Solid Waste Management Master Plan Common Elements. Metropolitan Authonty: Halifax, NS.

Guinc hard, P. 1992. Perspectives on Environmental, Socio-Economic and Ethicul Factors Associated with Consumer Choice: The Case of Diapers. Dalhousie University: Halifax, NS. Hailes, J. 1992. The prospects of green consumensm. In Consumers and the Erivirorinteiit: Proceedings of the IOCU Forum on Sustainable Consumption Rio de Janeiro 4 June 1992. International Organization of Consumers Unions: Penang, Malaysia.

Haines, D. 1999. City of Minneapolis. Personal communication. October 2 1, 1999.

Harrison, E.B. 1993. Going Green: How to Communicate Your Company's Erzvironrrtental Cornmitment. Business One Irwin: Homewood. IL.

Hedges. M.L. 199 1. Integrated solid waste management & centraiized recycling. In Procerdiugs Wastetech'91/Canadian Waste Management Conference. Environment Canada: Hull, QC.

Hinrichs, C., and E. Harrison. 1995. A cornparison of methods for evaluating

"environmental choice" packaging. Journal of Environmental Systems 24(1), 1-34W.

Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN). no date. Reusable Packaging. http://www.incpen.org/html/reusable. htm

Irvine, S. 1989. Consuming fashion? The limits of green consumensm. The Ecologist 19(3) May/June 1989,88-93.

Janowitz. M. 1993. Life-c ycle anal ysis: making environrnentally sound packaging c hoices. In Busiriess Meets the Environmental Challenge: Essays with Profiles of Nova Scoiia Companies. Y.Fnesen, R. Cote, and D. Patton (eds.). Lancelot Press: Hantsport. NS.

Katz. F. 1997. New packaging for supermarket take-out. Food Tecitnology November 1997 51(1 l), 97.

Katz, F. 1998a. Functional packages perform many functions. Food Technology June 1998 52(6), 96.

Katz, F. 1998b. "Fresh" foods require technologically supenor packaging. Food Teclinology October 1998 52(10), 92.

Katz, F. 1998c. Packaging source reduction. Food Technology December 1998 52(12), 82.

Keoleian, G.A., and D. Menerey. 1993. Life Cycle Design Giiidance Manzial: Environmental Requiremenrs and the Product System. National Pollution Prevention Center: Ann Arbor, MI. Landor, W. 1966. Packaging for retail impact. In Packaging Considerationsfor the Marketing Man. American Management Association: New York. NY.

Langer, J. 1989. Changing Our approach. Canadian Business Review Surnrner 1989,29- 31.

Laughlin, B., and L. Varangu. 1991. Waste rninimization: before or after the fact? In Proceedings Wastetech'91/Cnnadian Waste Management Conference. Environment Canada: Hull, QC.

Lave. L.. T. Wu. C. Henrickson, and F. McMichael. 1995. My shopping trip with Andre. Teclinology Review 98(2), 58-63.

LeMaire, W. 1989. Good news. Food Engineering Iune 1989,71.

LeMaire, W. 199 1. Environmental issues: green and mean. Food Engineering October 199 1, 86.

LeMaire, W. 1992. A green package. Food Engineering October 1992.74.

LeMaire, W. 1994a. Packaging as a strategic tool. Food Engineering Iune 1994,82.

LeMaire. W. 1994b. What happened to the "green" revolution? Food Engineering October 1994,82.

Levy, T. 2000. City of Berkeley. Personal communication. May 22, 2000.

Lignon, P. 199 1. Isolating the cost of excessive packaging. BioCycle November 1991, 68-70.

Mackenzie, D. 1990. The green consumer. Food Policy 15(6), 46 1-466.

MacLean Hunter Research Bureau. 1986. Canada S Packaging Market - 1986 edition. MacLean Hunter Research Bureau: Toronto, ON.

MacMillan & AssociatesMralsh Worden Lee Business Consultants. 1998. A Suszainable Approach to Plastics Recovery A Background Paper. Environment and Plastic Industry Council of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association/Nova Scotia Department of the Environment/Resource Recovery Fund Board Inc.: Haii fax, NS.

Marinelli, J. 1989. Garbage at the grocery: a guide to saner supermarket shopping. Garbage 1(1), 34-39.

Marinelli, J. 1990. The packaging challenge. Garbage May/June 1990,28-33. Marsh, K. 199 1. Effective management of food packaging: from production to disposal. Food Technology May 199 1,225-235.

McGuire, M.A. 1997. Consumer Attitudes Rela~edto Horne Delivery of Dairy Products and Reqclabifity of Milk Packaging. Saint Mary's University: Halifax, NS.

Meade, K. 1990. The challenge facing packaging. Waste Age March 1990, 123-126.

Mi gros. 1999. Migros et l'environnement. http://www.mi~os.ch/dynamic.php3?lang=f&sublink~key=159

Model, B. 1997. Shopping big. Moilier Eadz News AugustfSeptember l997,45-46.

Mogelonsky, M. 1995. Everybody Eats: Supermarket Consitmers in the 1990s. Amencan Demographic Books: Ithaca, NY.

Moore, D.S.. and G.P.McCabe. 1993. Introduction to the Practice of Stutistics. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, NY.

Murphy, J. 199 1. An effective public education strategy. In Proceedings Wasreteclz '9 IKanadian Waste Management Conference. Environmen t Canada: HUI1, QC.

National Center for Environmental Decision-making Research (NCEDR). 1997. Environmental citizenship: an issue of responsibility. http://w ww.ra.utk.edu/ncedt/publications/newsletters/update6.htm

Newton, J., and B. Quinn. 1998. Good things corne in smaller packages. Pollution Engiiieeriilg 30(1), 25-26.

Nova Scotia Environment. 1998. Pollution prevention success stories. http://www.gov.ns.ca/envi/dept/rmep/oIands.htm

Noye, C. 1992. A Study of the Correlation between Concernfor Environmental hues aiid Consrimer Pitrchase Behaviors. Saint Mary's University: Halifax, NS.

Olson, D., and H. Raphael. 1979. Current issues. Reprinted with permission. Opportuniries in Packaging Science. National Textbook Publishing Group: Lincolnwood, IL. In Packaging and Environmental Issues. 199 1. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Orr, L. 1976. Profit in bottle Iaws. Environment 18(10), 33-40.

Paper and Paperboard Packaging Environmental Council (PPEC). 1994. Fucts about Paper-Based Packaging. PPEC: Etobicoke, ON. Parkinson. A. 1983. Responsible waste management in a shrinking world. Reprinted wi th permission. Environment 25(10) 6 1-67 1983. In Packaging und Environmental Issues. 199 1. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

The Pollution Probe Foundation. 1989. Tlre Canadian Green Consumer Guide. McClelland & Stewart Inc.: Toronto, ON.

Pomtt. J. 1992. The limits of green consumerism. In Consumers and the Environment: Proceedirtgs of the IOCU Forum on Sustainable Consumption Rio de Janeiro 4 June i9E. International Organization of Consumers Unions: Penang, Malaysia.

Pszczola, D. 1996. Packaging suppliers offer innovative alternatives for handling and shipping of foods. Food Technology August 1998.7 1-72.

Rathje, W. 1989. Rubbish! Repnnted with permission. 77leAtlanricMonthly December. In Packaging and Environmental Issues. 199 1. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of St. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

Rathje, W., and C. Murphy. 1992. Rirbbisli! The Archaeology of Garbage. HarperPerennial: New York, NY.

Redd, A. 1992. Germany recycles packaging material. Waste Age 23(1), 50-58.

Rennie. C.,and A. MacLean. 1989. Salvaging the Future: Waste-Based Production. Institute for Local Self-Reliance: Washington, DC.

Robertson, J. 199 1. Package Pollution and the Environment. Minister of Supply and Services Canada: Ottawa, ON.

Robertson, G. 1993. Food Packaging: Principals and Practice. Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY.

Rousakis, J., and B. Weintraub. 1994. Packaging, environmentally protective municipal solid waste management, and the limits to the econornic premise. Ecology kiw Quarterly 2 l(4). 947- 1005.

Royal LePage. 2000. Survey of Canadian House Prices. Royal LePage: Don Mills, ON.

Russell, M. 1993a. Packaging in profile. Food Engineering March 1993, 105- 108.

Russell, M. 1993b. Packagen prepare for a positive environment. Food Engineering October 1993, 105-1 12.

Rzepec ki, E. (ed.). 199 1. Packaging and Environmental Issues. University of S t. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota. Schneeweiss, J. 1996. Proper packaging planning: do we need a federal law? Virginia Envirorzmental Law Journal 15(3), 443-467.

Schumacher, E.F. 1973. Small Is Beautifil: A Study of Economics As IfPeople Mattered. Blond & Briggs Ltd.: London.

Sel ke, S. 1990. Packuging and the Environment: Alternatives, Trends and Solutions. Technomic Publishing Company, Inc.: Lancaster, PA.

Sherman. S. 1990. Trashing a $150 billion business. Fortme 120(5), 90-98.

Sloan, E. 1993. Consumers, the en~ironment,and the food industry. Food Technology AU~US~1993.72-75+.

S ban, E. 1996. Consumer product trends: the silent salesman. Food Technology December 1996,25.

Smith, N .C. 1990. Morality and the Market: Consumer Pressure for Corporate AccountabiMy. Routledge: New York, NY.

Squires, R.J. 199 1. National Packaging Protocol: A Component of a Natiorial Wuste Reductiori Strategy .

Stana, E. 1994. Packaging and the environment. Natural Resoiirces & Environment 9 FaII 1994, 16-19.

Statistics Canada. 1987. Corporation Financial Statistics. cat. no. 6 1-207. Supply and Services Canada: HuIl, QC.

Stilwell, l.,C. Canty, P. Kopf, and A. Montrone. 1991. Packaging for the Environment: A Partnership for Progress. AMACOM: New York, NY.

Stoc kley, L. 1993. A Study of Environmental Attitudes and Knowledge of Grocery Sizoppers in the Halqar-Dartmouth Metro Area. Saint Mary's University: Halifax, NS.

Sutherland, N. 1993. The making of an environmentally friendly Company. In Business Meets the Environmental Challenge: Essuys with Profiles of Nova Scoria Compan ies. Y. Friesen, R. Cote, and D. Patton (eds.). Lancelot Press: Hantsport, NS.

Thommes, G. 199 L . Plastics: propenies and selection. Reprinted with permission. In Packaging and Environmental Issues. 199 1. Rzepecki, E. (ed.). University of S t. Thomas Technology Press: St. Paul, Minnesota.

United States Environmentd Pmtection Agency (US EPA). 1999. The Measure of Sltccess - Calculating WmeRednction. WasteWise Update EPA530-N-99-003. van Ejik, J., J.W. Nieuwenhuis, C.W. Post, and J.H. de Zeeuw. 1992. Reusable Versus Disposable: A Cornparison of the Environmental Impact of Poiystyrene, PaperKardboard and Porcelain Crockery. Minisûy of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment: AJ Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.

Wagner, S. 1997. Understanding Green Consumer Behaviotcr: A Qualitative Cognitive Approach. Rout ledge: New York, N'Y.

Weber, R.J. 1999. Excess packaging: al1 dressed up and no place to go. http:l/www. bcmag.cornlfeatures/9703trash.html

Williams, S. 1990. The green revolution in products and packaging. ID May/June 1990, 58-59+.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. no date. Eco-Eficiency and Clearier Prorl,

Xerox. 1992. Bzisiness Guide to Wasie Redtrction and Recycling. Xerox Corporation: Pa10 Alto, CA.