the return of returnable bottles: a study of consumers' and retailers' attitudes and...

The return of returnablebottles

A study of consumers' and retailers'attitudes and practices concerningreturnable bottles

Jonathan Fisher and Paul Horton

The beverage container is currently an issue of topical interest withlegislation against non-returnable beverage containers being passed invarious US states (eg Oregon) and Scandinavian countries. Thesubject is also being reviewed by the European Economic Community(EEC) and the UK Waste Management Advisory Council, Thisarticle shows the importance of the trippage of a returnable bottle tothe current debate over returnable v non-returnable beveragecontainers. A review is made of the currently available data ontrippage, and the article then presents the results of surveys, recentlyundertaken in Leicester and Colwyn Bay, UK, of consumers' andretailers' attitudes to returning bottles. These surveys have yieldedsome useful and interesting information which gives some indicationof the possible factors that determine trippage rates currentlyachieved by returnable bottles in the UK beverage markets . Finally,the article examines how these trippage rates can be raised .

The importance of trippage

The authors highlight theimportance of the trippage of areturnable bottle to the currentbeverage container debate . Resultsof recent surveys of consumers andretailers are presented, which showthat the reasons for low trippagesin the UK are more complex thanthe conventional diagnosis that'consumers cannot be bothered toreturn bottles'. In many instancesconsumers thought that the'returnable' bottle was 'non-returnable' and many consumersfound it difficult to return bottles tothe shops. Making it easier forconsumers to return the bottlewould appear to be a moreeffective method of raising trippagethan increasing the deposit levels .

Definitions

Trippage (T) is defined as the number of times that a returnablebottle is used for filling and delivering beverages . Figure 1 shows theflows in the beverage distribution system for returnable bottles andidentifies the two potential leakages which will prevent the bottle frombeing re-used . A consumer trippage rate (T ) is also frequently derivedand this is the number of times a bottle is returned by the consumers .'

This trippage of the returnable bottle has a central role indetermining the private and social viability of the returnable system .Generally, the individual returnable bottle is heavier and moreexpensive than its non-returnable counterpart and the returnablesystem incurs greater retailing and distribution costs . However, eachtime a bottle is returned, savings are achieved in the costs associatedwith the acquisition of the raw materials and their manufacture into a

Jonathan Fisher is with the PublicSector Economics Research Centre,University of Leicester, UniversityRoad, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK . PaulHorton is with Middlesex Polytechnic,114 Chase Side, Southgate, LondonN14 5PN, UK .

This article is an edited version of a paperby Jonathan Fisher and Paul Horton,University of Leicester, Public SectorEconomic Research Centre DiscussionPaper, No 79/03 .

0301-4207/79/040279-19 $02 .00 © 1979 IPC Business Press

279

The return of returnable bottlesNew (replacement)bottles

Beveragebottler

Figure 1 . Flows in beverage

idistribution system for returnable (2) Breakoges

(in bottlingbottles.

and in transit )

Figure 2 . Comparison of the totalinternal cost of supplying packagedbeer in non-returnable containers andreturnable bottles with differenttrippages.

Source : C. Stern, E . Vardieck, S . Smithand T. Hedrick, Impacts of BeverageContainer Legislation on Connecticut anda Review of the Experience of Oregon,Vermont and Washington State, Dept ofAgricultural Economics, University ofConnecticut, Storm, USA, 1975 .Note: Trippage dependent costs are thosecosts that will vary with trippage rateachieved, leg the costs of the individualcontainer (bottle) which will be amortizedby the number of trips achieved by thatbottle) . The trippage independent costsare those costs which are invariant of thetrippage rate and are incurred regardlessof whether the bottle is returned (egfilling, retailing and distribution costs),

The authors wish to acknowledge theassistance that was given in this study byJohn Pontin, Dorothy Mercer, PeterStansfield and Ali, of the ManchesterBusiness School's waste reclamationproject, and to express their appreciationto Pete Johnson for his expertphotographic work for the consumersurvey and to John Becket for his helpwith the computing .

280

w

400

3.00

1 .00

Consumers

(1) Failure toreturn bottle

_(B) Trippage dependent costs=container costs

Metal can

Non-returnable bottle

Returnable bottle

(A) Trippage independent costs =filling, retai ling and distribution costs

0 1 1 1 1

5

10

15

20

Trippage rote of returnable bottle

new container and, hence, in the total costs of the beverages inreturnable bottles. This is shown diagrammatically in Figure 2 .

These American data' show that the returnable bottle has to beused about five times for filling beverages, or a breakeven trippage ofabout five, to supply consumers with packaged beer at a lower cost, inpurely financial terms, than the two alternative non-returnablesystems.' Similarly, increases in the returnable's trippage will result inreductions in the environmental impacts associated with thedistribution of beverages . Table 1 shows the breakeven trippages thatthe returnable bottle has to achieve to require less energy andgenerate less solid waste, water and air pollution than the non-returnable systems .

Thus determination of whether the returnable bottle is the sociallypreferable container, in both economic and environmental terms, willdepend crucially on the trippage achieved by the returnable bottle .Therefore, there is a need for evaluation of trippage rates currentlyachieved in the UK beverage markets and, more importantly, for

RESOURCES POLICY December 1979

'The total trippage rate (T r) is derivedfrom the formula :

TT = 1 1-(ARR-APB)where ARR = consumers' rate ofreturning bottles, and APB = the %breakage rate for the bottles (at thebottling plant and in transit to retailersand consumers). The consumer trippagerate (T0,) is derived :

1T 1 1-ARR

2 C. Stern, E . Verdieck, S . Smith and T .Hedrick, Impacts of Beverage ContainerLegislation on Connecticut and a Reviewof the Experience of Oregon, Vermont andWashington State, Department ofAgricultural Economics, University ofConnecticut, Storrs, USA, 1975 .s Unfortunately detailed UK data onbeverage distribution costs are not atpresent available to enable determinationof the appropriate figure for the costbreakeven trippage for the UK beveragemarket.4 J.C.D. Fisher, 'A social appraisal ofbeverage containers recycling : a UKperspective', Resources Policy, Vol 4, No2, June 1978, pp 78-89 .'The trippage rate achieved by the milkbottle is estimated to be about 26 . Thishigher trippage figure for milk isprincipally due to the doorstep deliverysystem of the UK milkman .

Table 1 . Breakeven trippages IT •) a for the returnable bottle to have a lowerenvironmental impact than three non-returnable container systems for beer and softdrinks .

Sources: Research Triangle Institute,Energy and Economic Impacts ofMandatory Deposits, Federal EnergyAdministration USA, 1976 ; USEPA,Resource and Environmental ProfileAnalysis of Nine Beverage ContainerAlternatives, EPA, USA, 1974; data andinformation supplied by Metal Box MarketResearch Division ; Re-use and Recyclingof Packaging Materials: BeverageContainer Case Study, OECD, Paris,1978 .a It should be noted that the breakeventrippages for the returnable bottle, incomparison with non-returnablecontainer systems, can vary depending onthe specific characteristics of thebeverage market being studied (eg thedistributionn distance to the retail outlet,the type of supplementary packagingused etc) . The breakeven trippages forsolid waste generation are based on UKdata, but the other breakeven trippages,given in Table 1 and Figure 2, were

The return of returnable bottles

derived from US studies . In calculatingthe breakeven trippages for air and waterpollution shown above, the pollution datain the USEPA study have been adjustedto allow for the differences that areapparent between the UK and USAbeverages markets (eg the lowertransportation distances and lesssupplementary packaging required in theUK beverage market) .b Volume, rather than weight, isgenerally regarded as being the morerelevant measure of solid waste becauseit is the volume of the waste thatdetermines the capacity of refusecollection vehicles and the life of thelandfill site, and this results in theauthorities having to install expensiveequipment to compact the refuse. Thevolume figures refer to waste that hasreceived little compaction from any of thisequipment, ie this would be similar to thevolume of the waste in the householders'dustbin prior to its collection .

analysis of the determinants of trippage and hence, of how trippagecan be raised. The benefits of increasing trippage are the promotion ofa viable returnable system that will lower the costs of packagedbeverages to the consumer and yield savings in the environmentalpollution associated with the acquisition of the raw materials, theirmanufacture into new containers for beverages and the ultimatedisposal of the containers in solid waste .

This importance of trippage to the current debate concerningreturnable and non-returnable beverage containers was examined ingreater detail in an earlier paper ." This article concentrates onreviewing information currently available on trippage, identifying thepossible determinants of trippage and assessing how trippage can beincreased .

Current information on trippageUK dataTable 2 shows that trippage rates in the UK beer, cider and softdrinks markets have been declining in recent years, and that atpresent the trippage rates are about 13 for beer and cider and nine forcarbonated soft drinks.' These figures exceed most breakeventrippages, given in Figure 2 and Table 1, required for the returnablebottle to be the private and socially preferable container . However,calculation of the appropriate trippage figures poses serious problems,and there are two factors which must be noted in respect of thetrippage figures given above .


281

Non-returnablecontainersystem

Energy Solid wastebWeight

Environmental impactAir Water

pollutionVolume pollution

Non-returnable 2 1 .5 1 .5 1 .3 5.4bottle

Can (bimetallic)' 1 .5--4 7-8 2-3 1 .8 14.8Can (aluminium) 1-2 ? (=16-21) ? (=5-7) 1 .0 0 .8


Table 2 . Trippage rates in UK beer, ciderand carbonated soft drinks markets.

Sources: The Glass Container Industryand the Environmental Debate, GlassManufacturers Federation, London, 1975 ;and data supplied by R . Cook, UnitedGlass Containers Ltd .

-Trippege of Returnable Soft DrinksBottles, National Association of SoftDrink Manufacturers Ltd, UK, September1976 .' E. Weymes/A Report an Trippege Ratesof Carbonated Soft Drinks, prepared(dh_National Association of Soft Unnks

2 Manufacturers and the GlassManufacturers Federation) RetailDevelopment Centre, Cranfield School of

r, Management, UK, July 1978 .

282

The first concerns selection of the appropriate formula to calculatetrippage. The figures in Table 2 were based on the frequently adoptedformula of

Trippage =total sales (unit fillings) in returnable bottles

(1)total purchases of new returnable bottles

Purchases of new returnable bottles are the best surrogate measurecurrently available for bottles that have not been returned, and thisformula will yield accurate trippage figures provided that, during theperiod under review, there has not been any significant change inbeverage sales in returnable bottles . In the period 1970-76, however,there has been a 16% drop in the level of beer and soft drinks sold inreturnable bottles . This means that the beverage industry will not needto purchase as many new bottles to satisfy this declining market, sothat formula (1) may yield an overestimate for current trippage ratesand will understate the decline in trippage rates that has occurred inrecent years .

Second, the figures given in Table 2 are aggregate trippages of thewhole beverage market. Recent surveys commissioned by theNational Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers (NASDM) haverevealed a wide divergence between the trippage rates experienced bythe various bottlers that participated in the surveys .' , ' The trippagerates varied depending on the size of the bottle, the location of thesales market - apparently lower trippages occur for beverages sold inholiday resort areas and in central areas of metropolitan cities - andthe type of outlet through which the beverages are sold . The beveragemarkets contain two sectors : 'on' premise sales (eg in public houses ordoor-to-door sales) and òftpremise sales (eg through off-licencesand other retail outlets) . These two sectors are different and,therefore, merit separate consideration, especially because anybeverage container policy will primarily be concerned with the òff'premise sector. The òn' premise sector represents a closed-loopreturn system where the return of the bottles is easy andstraightforward so that the trippage achieved in this sector is muchhigher (about 30-40) than that achieved for 'off' premise sales wherebeverages are consumed away from the place of purchase and theconsumer then has to return the bottle to this place . However, apartfrom an opinion survey of retailers, commissioned by Metal Box,which gave a tentative stimate of 3-4 for the òffpremise trippagefor beer, very little research has been performed in this importantarea. Therefore, a survey of retailers was recently undertaken inLeicester, UK, to obtain additional information on this subject. Thissurvey covered 18 retailers and incorporated the six main types ofretail outlets for beverages (off-licences, licensed comer stores,greengrocers, newsagents, small and large supermarkets) . Theseretailers were asked, `what proportion of returnable softdrinks/beer/cider bottles are returned to you?' and the completedquestionnaires were collected in person to enable the authors to clearup any problems and misunderstandings that the retailer may havehad concerning the questions . The results of the survey are presentedin Table 3, which shows that the findings of this retailers' survey arefairly similar to those of the earlier survey undertaken by Metal Box .Both surveys, being based on the opinions and estimates of a limitednumber of retailers,' may not yield perfectly accurate data on this


Year Beer and cider Carbonatedsoft drinks

1930 ' 201972 1a 101973 15 101974 13 9

°The precise accuracy of these retailers'estimates for their return rates for bottlesis uncertain . Any inaccuracies in theseestimates would have a marked effect onthe resultant 'off' premise trippage figure .Thus, if the retailers estimate for thereturn rate of battles was 90%, then thisgives a trippage of 10, while theseemingly fairly similar return rate of 95%yields a trippage of 20. There wasconsiderable variation between the returnrates given by the individual retailers inthe survey in Leicester, and also in theMetal Box retailers' survey . Therefore thetentative 'off' premise trippage figuresfrom these retailers' surveys should betreated with some caution . But,unfortunately, no other information iscurrently available on this important area .Further detailed and more definite dataare required on this subject.' J .C .D . Fisher, 'A review of the returnablebottle's trippage and the importance ofthis trippage to the current beveragecontainer debate', Public SectorEconomics Research Centre, LeicesterUniversity, Discussion Paper, No 78-02,Leicester, UK, 1978 .


subject but do at least give some indication that the òff' premisetrippage for carbonated soft drinks and cider may be currently about5-6 and for beer about 3-5 .Overseas experienceTable 4 shows trippage rates currently achieved for returnable bottlesin a number of countries . In Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Canada(for beer), bottles are returned at the rate of 99%, 99 .35%, 96% and98% respectively. This yields consumer trippage rates (T r ) of 100,150, 25 and 50 respectively, and, when allowance is made for thebreakage rate of 1-3%, yields the total trippage rates (T)shown in Table 4 . These data refer to aggregate trippage rates for thewhole beverage market ('on' and òff' premise sales). Unfortunately,data for òff' premise trippage are, at present, only available for twooverseas countries - Sweden, and Ontario, Canada (for beer) - whereconsumer òff' premise trippage rates are estimated to be 17 and 25respectively. Thus Swedish and Canadian consumers currently returnabout 94% and 96% of their beverage bottles to the shops.

This is in marked contrast to the position in the UK whereconsumers currently return about 70-83% of beverage bottles to theshops (an 'off' premise consumer trippage rate of between 3 and 6) .These overseas trippage figures relate to the specific circumstances ineach individual country, and differences between the structure of thebeverage markets in the various countries may mean that thisoverseas experience may not be directly applicable to the UKbeverage market. However, these apparent differences between thetrippage rates currently achieved in various countries does raise thequestion of what are the determinants of trippage and, in particular,what are the reasons for the UK low 'off' premise trippage rate .

Current information on determinants of trippage

Little research or analysis has been undertaken so far on thedeterminants of trippage, especially òff' premise trippage . The reasonusually given for the low return rate for bottles in the UK is thatconsumers 'cannot be bothered to return bottles' . Increasing the levelof deposits has been the main prescription usually adopted in the pastto raise trippage . The ineffectiveness of this conventional diagnosisand prescription is evidenced by the fall in trippage rates in recentyears despite large increases in deposit levels . This has resulted inincreasingly large sums of money being lost by consumers in the formof foregone deposits on their returnable bottles . It is estimated that, in1977, UK consumers lost about £18 million in deposits on the 267million beer, cider and soft drinks bottles that were not returned .

Thus there was a need for a thorough and wider ranging study ofthe determinants of trippage . An earlier paper' identified 14 factorsthat possibly determine the trippage of a returnable bottle. Thesefactors included :

•

in-plant breakages ;•

consumers' (un)willingness to return bottles, which could beinfluenced by (1) the level of the deposit, (2) advertisingcampaigns for the return of bottles ;

•

consumers' ease of returning bottles, affected by (1) thedistribution channel for the beverages (ie 'off' premise or 'on'premise sales), (2) the consumers' perception of the bottle as


283


Source : Survey of 18 retailers inLeicester, UK .a The return rates for each bottle sizehave been weighted by the retailers' totalsales of the beverage in that bottle size .

Sources : Re-use and Recycling ofPackaging Materials : Beverage ContainerCase Study, OECD, Paris, 1978 ; FloatEquity Systems for Standard RefillableSoft Drinks Containers, WasteManagement Advisory Board, Ontario,Canada, 1976; A. Peaker, 'Resourcesaving from the reintroduction of areturnable system of beverage containers :a case study of experience in Oregon .Resources Policy, Vol 1, No 5, September1975, pp 266-276 ; Study of theEffectiveness and Impact of OregonMinimum Deposit Law, Applied DecisionsSystems Ltd, USA, 1974 ; and TheBeverage Market In Sweden, 1973, 1974and 1975, PLM Metal Division and GlassDivision .

284

being a deposit-bearing returnable bottle, (3) the existence of astandard returnable bottle, (4) the retailers' policy on acceptingreturned bottles, (5) the market shares of returnable and non-returnable bottles, (6) the type of outer packaging used forbeverage sales to the consumer ;

•

the structure of the beverage industry .Therefore, a research project was set up in Leicester to test this modelof the determinants of trippage by obtaining detailed information onthe structure of the beverage market in the UK and by obtaininginformation from the three parties involved in the flow of returnedempty bottles :

(1) Consumers

(2) Retailers

(3) Bottlers/brewers

The objective of this study was to find out why bottles are at presentnot returned and consider what could be done to increase the returnrate for bottles . The study consisted of four parts :

•

A survey of 178 householders and schoolchildren in Leicesterand Colwyn Bay, UK .

•

A survey of the opinions and practices of 18 retailers in Leicester .•

A practical bottle-returning exercise in which a random sample ofeight returnable bottles was taken back to 24 retail outlets and


Table 3 . Retailers' estimates for the returnable bear, cider and soft drinks bottles thatan returned to them (%) .

Beverage

Bottle size

Retailers' estimate Weighteda average of allfor the return rate bottle sizes for each beverageof bottles (%) Return rate (%) Trippage (TC )

Soft drinks

4-6 oz

7726 oz

87 81 5.3Litres/quarts

79Beer

6oz

100y, Pt

70 78.6 4.71 Pt

812 pt

66Cider

Quarts

83 83 5.9

Table 4 . Trippage rates achieved in various countries .

Country Trippage (Tt )Beer land cider) Soft drinks

UK 13 9Canada

Ontario total market 33 13urban centre 5-7

Quebec 33USA 14 10

Oregon 6-20 12-24Switzerland 60-80 20-70West Germany 25 9 iSweden 17Finland 30Norway 35Denmark 31

Table 5 . Subdivision of the householders'(HHs) replies that the returnable bottleswas a returnable, a non-returnable, or ifhe/she did not know .

Reply

All HHs who All HHs whohad purchased did notthe returnable return thebottle (%)

bottle (%)Returnable 72

49Non-returnable 12

34Don't know 16

17

Source : Consumer survey in Leicester,UK.

a The ten returnable bottles in the surveywere bottles nos 1, 4, 5, 8 . 9, 11, 12, 13,14 and 16 in Figures 3-5 .

Source : As Table 5.a The ten returnable bottles were thosecited in Table 5 .



the characteristics of the bottles rejected and accepted by eachretailer noted .

•

Personal interviews with five local and national bottlers .

Consumer surveyThe consumer survey was undertaken in seven separate areas ofLeicester and covered the major different types of housing areas(council houses, terraced, semi-detached and detached houses) . Thesurvey received prior publicity in the local press and radio so that aresponse rate of more than 80% was achieved . A total of 178 peopleparticipated in the survey .

After consultations with interested parties in the beverage industryand those actively engaged in the design of questionnaire surveys,revisions were made to an earlier draft and a final questionnairedeveloped for the survey .

The first section of the survey contained specific questionsconcerning each of the beverage bottles shown in Figures 3-5 .Consumers were asked :•

Question 1. `Do you buy any of these bottles?'•

Question 2. `Can you tell me whether the bottles shown in thesephotographs are returnable or non-returnable, or if you do notknow?'

•

Question 3. 'Of the returnable bottles that you buy, whatproportion do you actually return?'

•

Question 4. `Do you know what the deposit level is on each ofthese returnable bottles shown in these photographs?'

The replies to questions 2 and 4 are presented in Tables 5 and 6 .Table 5 shows that 12% of the householders who had purchased

the returnable bottle in question thought that this bottle was a non-returnable, and a further 16% did not know whether the bottle wasreturnable or non-returnable. Of particular interest are the repliesfrom those consumers who did not return the returnable bottle . In justover 50% of the replies from this group, the bottle was not correctlyidentified as being returnable, with 34% regarding this `returnable'bottle as being non-returnable, so that it is hardly surprising that theseconsumers had failed to return the bottle .

Table 6 shows that 54% of those householders who had purchasedthe returnable bottle replied that they did not know what the depositlevel was on this bottle, and 93 .5% of those consumers who did notreturn the bottle said that they either did not know what the depositlevel was on this bottle, or gave a deposit level that was less than theactual deposit level on this bottle .

Thus it is evident, in Tables 5 and 6, that consumers currently have

Table 6. Householders' (H He) replies to question 'do you know what the depositlevel is on each of these bottles?' a

285

HHs reply concerning Replies where (1)-43) given bythe deposit level on the All H Hs who had purchased All HHs who did notreturnable bottle the returnable bottle (%) return the bottle (%)

~o(1) Don't know 54 72 .5(2) < Actual level 26.5 21(3) 3Actual level 19 .5 6 .5

The return ofreturnable bottles

Figure 3 . Soft drinks bottles used in

the consumer survey .

Note : In the actual survey, 10" x 8"enlargements of these photographs wereused so that the consumer was presentedwith a fairly life-size picture of the bottles .

286

an apparent lack of knowledge about returnable bottles, and theirdeposit values, in the UK beverage market . The survey also foundthat 84% of the consumers did correctly identify the non-returnablebottle as being non-returnable . Therefore it appears unlikely that thislack of knowledge was caused by any ignorance on the part of thoseconsumers who took part in the survey . This indicates that theconsumers' lack of knowledge concerning the returnable bottlesresults from other factors .

Many non-returnable bottles have the words `No Deposit NoReturn' embossed on the bottle or prominently printed on the label(eg see bottles no 3, in Figure 3, and no 15 in Figure 5) . In contrast,many returnable bottles currently marketed do not have any similar


Figure 4 . Beer bottles used in theconsumer survey .

Note : In the actual survey, 10" x 8"enlargements of these photographs wereused so that the consumer was presentedwith a fairly life-size picture of the bottles .

Figure 6. Cider bottles used in theconsumer survey .

Note : In the actual survey, 10" x 8"enlargements of these photographs wereused so that the consumer was presentedwith a fairly life-size picture of the bottles.

10 These are bottles nos 1, 5 and 13 inFigures 3 and 5 respectively. Anothercider bottle (no 14) also had the words'Deposit paid' on the label . But this was insuch small print on the side of the labelthat very close inspection would berequired on the consumer's part forhim/her to be able to discern these words .Therefore this bottle was classified ashaving no readily noticeable identifyingfeature .



feature to inform the consumer of the returnable nature of the bottleor the level of the refundable deposit on it . Two soft drinks bottles andone cider bottle 1° selected for this survey did have such an identifyingfeature on their labels, and the two soft drinks bottles also had thelevel of the deposit printed on the cap. These bottles and theirappropriate deposit levels were more often correctly specified by theconsumers in the survey than were those returnable beverage bottleswhich did not have any such identifying feature .

Consumer informationData were obtained, from the retailers' survey and the bottle-returning exercise, on the information that the consumer receiveswhen he buys the beverage .

287


Table 7 . The marking, at the retail outlets, Retailers were asked how they currently mark the prices of theof the prices of beverages in returnable beverages they sell in returnable bottles (either on their sales shelvesbottles and the deposit level on these or on the bottles themselves), ie if the price of a pint of beer in abottles .

returnable bottle was 3 p and the d osit on the bottle was , thendo they now mark :

•

The (gross) price of the beverage including the deposit (41p, inthe example given).

•

The (net) price of the beverage excluding the deposit (35p, in theexample).

•

The (gross) price of the beverage, inclusive of the deposit, butwith the existence (and level) of the deposit on the bottledisplayed as well (4 lp including 6p deposit, in the example) .

•

The price of the beverage and the deposit on the bottle separately(35p + 6p deposit, in the example).

•

Any other marking systems followed .

In the bottle-returning exercise, information was obtained on the firstfour price marking systems above adopted by the retailer through avisual inspection of the retailers' bottles and shelves . The retailers'questionnaire survey and the bottle-returning exercise yielded similarresults which are presented in Table 7 . 11 This shows that, while eightof the retailers did identify the deposit separately, most (22) markedonly the gross price of the beverage and did not indicate the existenceor level of any deposit on the bottle . Presumably, this would affect theconsumer's perception of the returnable nature of the bottle and thelevel of the deposit on this bottle .

The survey found that the returnable bottles, and their appropriatedeposit levels, were incorrectly identified more frequently by thoseconsumers who purchased non-returnable bottles than by those whopurchased only returnable bottles . This finding gives empiricalsupport to the suggestion in the Financial Times, 20 November 1973,that, `It also seems that the non-returnable bottle, whose use has beenspurred by supermarket traders, has made a considerablepsychological impact on the British so that they now apparentlyassume that every bottle is to be thrown away when empty' . Thus, if,in contrast to these recent trends, the market share of the returnablebottle increased, then this might be expected to increase consumers'awareness of the returnable nature of the bottle. A high market sharefor returnable bottles may also mean that returning bottles becomesan accepted and habitual part of shopping which would affect theconsumers' attitudes and willingness to return bottles .

The increased use of returnable bottles would probably result alsoin a rise in the number of retail outlets who sell beverages inreturnables and, hence, accept returned empty bottles . This shouldmake it easier for consumers to return the bottle to an appropriateretail outlet. However, this survey, and earlier studies 12 found that thepurchasers of non-returnable bottles said that they returned lessbottles than did the traditional purchasers of returnable bottles .Therefore, a rise in the market share of the returnable bottle wouldalso have a possibly short-term, negative effect on trippage as thesepurchasers of non-returnable bottles switched to using returnablebottles . The net effect on trippage rates of these counteracting factorsis uncertain, but Table 8 does show that, with the exception of theGerman soft drinks market, in all countries where the returnablebottle holds a large share of the beverage market, a high trippage rate

Source : Survey of retailers and a bottle-returning exercise performed in Leicester,UK.

1 ' It was also found in the bottle-returningexercise that, for ten out of the 62returnable bottles accepted by theretailers, the deposit given was less thanthe actual deposit refund on these bottles ."Ontario Sold Waste Task Force, AnEnvironmental Study of BeveragePackaging, General report to the OntarioMinister of the Environment, OntarioMinistry of the Environment, Toronto,Canada, 1974 .

288


Method of markingbeverage prices

Number ofretailers whocurrentl y usemarkingsystemsll)-(4)

(1) 'Gross' priceincluding deposit 22

(2) 'Net' priceexcluding deposit 0

(3) Gross price, but withdeposit identified 4

(4) Price of beverage anddeposit levelseparately 4

Source : Re-use and Recycling ofPackaging Materials : Beverage ContainerCase Study, OECD, Paris, 1978 .

Table 9 . Reasons given by householdersfor not returning bottles .

a These included 'automatically throwaway, 'bottle thrown away by mistake','bottle broken', 'taken to parties' and'moved house' .

's This question was asked after thequestion 'is there any particular reasonwhy you do not return this/these bottles?'so that no bias should result in thereasons given by the householders fortheir not returning bottles.'•Of the seven householders who saidthat they did not return bottles becausethey did not think it was worthwhile, foursaid that returning bottles was difficultand three said that it was very difficult toreturn bottles . This indicates that it wasnot worthwhile for these consumers toreturn bottles in these difficultcircumstances .'"Other reasons given for the retailers'refusal to accept a returnable bottle werethat the bottle did not have a top on it andthat the bottle did not have the retailersstamp on it (apparently some retailers puttheir stamp on the label of their bottles inorder to denote their place of sale). Manychildren said that the retailer would notgive them the cash for the deposit ontheir returnable bottles but would onlygive them credit towards something thatthey purchased in the store,



Table 8 . Trippage rates and market shares of returnable bottles in beverage markets ofvarious countries .

is achieved (eg Norway, Denmark and Canada (for beer) ), while inthose countries such as the UK, the USA and Canada (for softdrinks) where the returnable bottle's market share is lower, a lower

Reason

Number of

trippage rate is experienced .householdersstating

rea7On Reasons for not returning bottlesDifficult to return bottles 35Not bother

22

Table 9 presents the reasons that the householders gave for notNot 'worth it'

7

returning a bottle. This shows that some householders could not beNot enough time

2Irregular/random purchase 5

bothered to return the bottle or said that it was `not worth it for them' .Forget about the

However, as many householders (35 in all) said that they did notreturnable' bottle

4Use for other purposes

return a bottle because they found it difficult to return bottles .leg home brew etc) 3 All the householders who had purchased a returnable bottle were

Other reasons givens 7 then asked, `how easy or difficult is it for you to return bottles?'t 3 andtheir replies revealed further information on this aspect. 6% of theseconsumers replied that they found it very difficult to return bottles,32% said that it was difficult, and 18% said that it was a little difficultto return bottles . The corresponding figures were even higher forthose consumers who did not return bottles, of whom nearly half(48%) said that they found it very difficult or difficult to returnbottles. 14

Table 10 shows that there were three main ways in whichconsumers find the returning of bottles difficult :•

Some, especially older people, said that the bottles were heavyand awkward to carry .

•

Some consumers did not know that the bottle was a returnablebottle, and many did not know where they could return the bottleto get the deposit refund on it.

•

Many customers said that they encountered problems in finding ashop that would accept their returnable bottles .

The last factor appears to have been the most important cause of thedifficulties experienced by consumers . These consumers said thatretailers had refused to accept a returnable bottle which they hadtaken to the shop . The reasons most frequently given by the retailersfor this was that `the bottle had not been bought at that shop', andthat `the bottle was not of the same brand label sold by the retailer,(iean off-licence selling one brand of beer or soft drinks did not accept areturnable beer or soft drinks bottle of a different brand) ." Notsurprisingly, more than half these consumers gave up the attempt toreturn the bottle and threw it away .

Raising trippageOne aim of the survey was to assess how trippage, or return rates, can

289

Country Beer Soft drinksMarket shareof returnable (%)

Trippage Market shareof returnable (%)

Trippage

UK 68 13 54 9Canada 98 33 49 13USA 20 14 38 10West Germany 93 25 91 9Switzerland 95 60-80 100 20-70Denmark 97 31 99 31Norway 99.7 35 99.7 35


Table 10. 'In what way the householdersfound it difficult to return bottles' .

Factors mentioned

Number ofby householder

timesmentioned

Bottles heavy/awkwardto carry

23Not know bottle was areturnable

15Not know where toreturn bottle to

23Problems in finding a shopthat would acceptreturnable bottle

86Problem finding suitableshop open

3Need to go out of way/

13nowhere close to returnbottle toRandom purchase

7Difficult without car

2

Table 11 . Householders' (HHt) replies toquestion 'what would encourage you toreturn more bottles?'

Reply Number ofHHs givingreply

Bottlers and retailers saidthat bottles were wantedback/advertisementcampaign 20

Easier to return bottles 52Higher deposit 29Uniform deposits 2Government action 14Nothing, return all now 21Nothing 4Other replies givens

6

Source : Survey of consumers in Leicester,UK.a These included a 'shop not lose','discount on next purchase as well asdeposit refund' and 'lottery' .

's In Canada, beer is sold in 'handy pack'carriers in which it is convenient to placethe bottles when empty, and then returnthe carrier full of empty bottles to thestores . in Scandinavian countries legDenmark and Norway), returnable crates,which also carry a deposit, are used forthe sale of beverages to the consumer. Itis suggested that this is one of the factorscontributing to the high return rates, of98%, 99.35% and 99%, currentlyexperienced in these three countries ."The survey covered different housingareas of the city : one modern high-riseblock of flats : two modern suburbanhousing areas ; and one area of terracedhouses in which there were many localshops and corner stores . Householders inthis last area found it much easier toreturn bottles to the nearby stores thandid householders in the first three modernhousing areas.

290

be raised. Therefore the householders were asked, `what wouldencourage you to return more bottles?' and their replies are presentedin Table 11 . 20 people said that they would return more bottles ifthere was some positive promotion by the bottlers/brewers and theretailers of the importance and social benefits of returning bottles .Apart from a recent `hand it back' campaign run by some soft drinksmanufacturers, little has been done to demonstrate to the consumerthat the returnable bottle is wanted back . This contrasts with thesituation in Canada where the Ontario brewers and retailers run anextensive `bring 'em all back' campaign at their stores and throughadvertising channels .

Table 11 shows that, while 29 consumers said that increases indeposit levels would encourage them to return more bottles, nearlytwice as many said that they would return more bottles if it was madeeasier for them to return the bottles . This suggests that the ease ofreturn is a more important factor than increases in deposit levels . Thedeposit on a returnable bottle is designed to encourage consumers toreturn the bottle by acting as a financial inducement to compensatethem for the inconvenience of returning the bottle. However, it wasnoted earlier that over 70% of those consumers who did not returnbottles did not know what the level of the deposit was, and a further21% gave a deposit level that was less than the actual deposit level atpresent on the bottles . Therefore, for these consumers the presentdeposit levels were not acting as a very effective incentive for them toreturn the bottle. Furthermore, in Oregon, USA, a higher return ratewas achieved by a standard `certified' beer bottle with a 24 depositthan by a non-standard beer bottle carrying a 5$ deposit . Thus, itappears that making it easier for consumers to return bottles (or, inother words, reducing the inconvenience and difficulty of returningbottles) would have more effect on return rates than further increasingdeposit levels .

The consumers in this survey mentioned five major factors whichwould make it easier for them to return bottles to the shops :

•

better information, on the bottle's label or at the shop, that thebottle was a returnable bottle and where the consumers couldreturn the bottle to get back their deposit on the bottle ;

•

if it was easier to carry the bottles back to the shop - in the UK,returnable beverage bottles are usually sold across the counter inindividual bottles, and some consumers find these individualbottles awkward to carry back to the retail outlet ;"

•

closer shops ;"•

standardization of bottles ;•

more consumers said that it would be easier if they could take thereturnable bottles back to any shop (ie standardized acceptanceof beverage bottles by retailers) and many consumers mentionedbeing able to return the bottle to more shops .

This importance of the ease of returning bottles is furthersubstantiated by the experience in the beverage markets of variouscountries. In countries such as Norway, Denmark and Canada (forbeer) where it is relatively easy for consumers to return the standardbottles, which are accepted by any shop selling the beverage, a highreturn and a high trippage rate are achieved by these bottles. In thosecountries, such as the UK and Canada (for soft drinks), where it is


Table 12. Retailers' attitudes to handlingreturnable bottles.

Retailers' response toquestion 'how do youfeel about handlingreturnables?'

Part of job 4OK 2No problem 2Support use of returnables 3Necessary but a nuisance 1Dislike inconvenience

6

Number ofretailersgiving reply

's At current deposit levels, this sum ofmoney for a dozen returnable bottles canamount to more than El .


more difficult to return bottles to the retail outlets, a much lowertrippage rate is achieved (see Table 4) .

Retailers

Retailers have a central role in the distribution of beverage containersboth to and from the consumer and the bottler/brewer . Therefore, theretailers' survey also included questions on the retailers' attitudes andpolicies concerning returnable bottles. The questionnaires weredistributed to retailers in the areas of Leicester that had been selectedfor the consumers' survey . A response rate of 82% was achieved forthese requests for data and information . The questionnaires werecompleted by 18 retailers and the interviewers then personally visitedall these retailers, which enabled them to give useful clarification andfurther elaboration to their replies .

Table 12 presents the retailers' replies to the question, `how do youfeel about handling returnables and redeeming the deposits?' Thisshows that some retailers considered the handling of returnablebottles to be part of the job, and that three retailers positivelysupported the use of returnable bottles. This was not only forenvironmental reasons but also for commercial reasons . Theseretailers said that the use of returnable bottles attracts customers backinto their shops because they return with the empty bottle . This iscomparable to many retailers' current practice of giving specialdiscounts on certain products, or loss leaders, in order to attractcustomers into their store ; further, when the customers return thebottle, they are also given money (the deposit on the bottle)ta whichthey are then likely to spend in that shop . Many retailers said thatthey disliked the inconvenience and problems caused by the sorting,handling and storing of the returned empty bottles . Some retailersalso said that the redemption of the many different and frequentlychanging deposit levels on the various returnable bottles createdadministrative problems for them and could create cash-flowproblems because money was tied up idle in their stock of emptybottles, for which they have refunded the deposit to the customer butnot yet received their deposits back from their supplier .

Retailer acceptance of returnable bottlesThe retailers were then asked whether they accepted all returnablesoft drinks/beer/cider bottles that were brought to their store, or onlycertain ones. Table 13 gives details of the types of bottles that theretailers said they did and did not accept . This shows that, while a fewretailers accept any bottle, most retailers make certain restrictions onthe types of returnable bottles that they will accept back fromconsumers. These restrictions appeared to vary depending on the typeof consumer who was bringing the bottle to the store . Thus retailersmay accept any bottles, of the same size and shape as those used bytheir bottlers, from a regular or bona fide customer (ie someone whowas likely to buy something), but would not accept these returnablebottles from children. This information from the retailers regardingtheir acceptance of bottles confirms the earlier findings of the surveyof consumers, many of whom said that a retailer had not accepted areturnable bottle which they had taken to his store . In particular,many of the children said that the retailer would not give them the


291


12 For ten of these 62 bottles accepted bythe retailers the deposit given was lassthan the correct deposit refund on thesebottles .2e Six of these rejected standard bottlesdid not have a label .

292

Table 13 . Retailers' policy towards accepting returned bottles.

cash for the deposit on their returnable bottle but would only givethem credit towards something that they bought in the store .

Bottle-returning exercise. Further detailed information on this aspectwas obtained from a bottle-returning exercise, in which eightrandomly selected returnable bottles were taken to 24 shops in thesurvey areas. The characteristics of these bottles were noted alongwith the characteristics of the beverages sold by the retailers . Thebottles used in this exercise included many of the popular beer, ciderand soft drinks bottles currently marketed . 62 of the bottles wereaccepted by the 24 retailers and 129 bottles were rejected19 Thus, onaverage, the retailers accepted two to three and rejected five to six ofthe eight returnable bottles in each return exercise . Standardizedbottles were rejected almost as frequently as bottles of a distinctiveshape used only by one manufacturer. Comparison of thecharacteristics of each batch of eight bottles with the characteristicsof the beverage bottles sold by the retailer revealed interestingcategories for the rejected bottles . The four major categories were :

•

17 rejected bottles were of a different brand, shape and size tothose sold by the retailer. The retailer could not have beenexpected to accept these bottles .

•

34 of the rejected bottles had distinctive shapes . The retailers soldthe same beverage in the same size of bottle but in bottles of adifferent shape and brand name . Standardization of bottle shapesmay help to increase the trippage and life of these bottles .

•

46 of the rejected bottles were of the same size and shape as thebeverage bottles sold by the retailer but were of a different brandname or labe120 (ie standard one pint beer bottle not beingaccepted by an off-licence which sold the standard pint beerbottles of another brewery) . Standardization of bottle shapewould have no effect on the trippage rate achieved by thesebottles .

• Nine rejected bottles were the same size, shape and brands asthose sold by the retailers . The retailer said that he would notaccept three of these bottles because, even though he stocked thesame brand, `the bottle was not from my bottler' (the bottler'sname was in small print on the bottom of the label).

It is evident that, although a few retailers positively support the use of


Types of returnable bottles thatare accepted/not accepted

Number of times the policy was stated bythe retailers for :soft drinks bottles beer and cider bottles

Only accept brands sold 9 -Only accept brands sold even if bottlewas same size and shape as those sold 6 9

Not accept bottles that werenot bought here 1 2without top 2 -without label 2 1cracked 4 4dirty 4 3scavenged bottles - 2

Accept bottle if correct size and shape 2 3Accept bottle if correct size and shape,but only from certain customers 1 3

21 One soft drinks bottler, who hadrecently changed his labels to identify the'returnable' bottle, said that his costs forhaving the labels redesigned were about£30 for each new type of label .22 Although it is also noted that bottlersare willing to allocate valuable label spaceto clearly state 'No deposit, No return' onnon-returnable bottles sold throughsupermarkets.


returnable bottles because this attracts back into the shop customerswho are likely to buy something, most retailers place restrictions onthe types of returnable bottles that they will accept from customers .The two main reasons given by these retailers for stipulatingrestrictions were `that their supplier would not accept the bottles', and`because the returned bottles caused problems leg storage etc) forthem'. These retailers were unwilling to perform the service ofaccepting returned empty bottles, for which they did not perceive anycompensation or rewards. Thus there appears to be a markedreluctance to accept back empty bottles on the part of many retailerswho stipulate these restrictions to reduce the number of returnedbottles (and the concomitant problems) that they have to handle .

Brewers and soft drinks bottlers

Brewers and soft drinks bottlers want back as many as possible oftheir returnable bottles because this re-use saves them from having tobuy a new bottle, although, in most cases, the deposit is about equalto the costs of a new bottle, so that the costs of replacing a bottlewhich is not returned are covered by the consumers' lost deposit onthis bottle. Some brewers operate a bonus scheme for their driverswhich is related to the number of empty bottles that they bring backfrom the sales outlets . It is believed that no premium or discount iscurrently given by brewers or soft drinks bottlers to retailers forhandling returned bottles.

The UK National Association of Soft Drinks Manufacturers hasrecommended the use of a returnability symbol for returnable bottles .This symbol has been adopted by many bottlers. Many others nowprint words such as `Please return bottle' on their labels, and somebottlers also print on their bottle tops the level of the deposit chargedon the bottle . These latter methods of identifying the returnable natureof the bottle and its deposit are more noticeable and probably have agreater impact on consumer awareness than the returnability symbolswhich tend to be in small print on the bottom corner of the label. Itwas pointed out by some brewers that their ability to change theirlabels was constrained by the costs of redesigning the labels," whichmeant that the label designs are generally changed only every fiveyears or so. Their ability to include some feature on the label waslimited by the size of the labels on their bottles . The need to specifythe contents of the bottle, where it was bottled and to advertise thebrand, meant that there would not be much room left on the labels oftheir (relatively small) bottles for any readily noticeable featureinforming the consumer that this was a deposit-bearing returnablebottle." Separate neck labels would be one effective method ofdisplaying such an identifying feature, although this would involvesome increase in the costs of labelling . Another alternative isembossing such words as `Returnable Bottle', or `Deposit Bottle,Please Return' on the actual bottle (as on Coca Cola bottles andmany milk bottles) . The bottlers and brewers also stated that thedeposits on beer and soft drinks bottles cause them problems becausehandling of the deposit-bearing empty bottles and crates could createopportunities for swindling .

Implications

These surveys of beverage consumers', retailers' and bottlers'


293


294

opinions and practices have interesting implications for two importantquestions in the current debate concerning returnable and non-returnable beverage containers - why consumers do not return bottlesand how the return rate, or trippage, of returnable bottles can beincreased .

Why consumers do not return returnable bottlesThe consumer survey shows that some consumers did not returnbottles because they could not be bothered or were unwilling to returnbottles. It would have been better, in both economic andenvironmental terms, if these consumers had purchased a non-returnable bottle in the first place rather than their present failing toreturn a returnable bottle, and, perhaps, if they were then encouragedto recycle these non-returnable bottles leg through bottle banks) .However, it is doubtful whether those consumers for whom it was `notworth it' to return the bottle to a shop for the deposit refund ofbetween 4-10p on each bottle would be willing, for no financialreward, to take their non-returnable bottles to a bottle bank .

However, the survey also reveals that more consumers did notreturn the bottles because they found it difficult to return bottles . 48%of those consumers who did not return bottles said that they found itdifficult or very difficult to return bottles. These difficulties arose fromtwo major sources. First there was an apparent lack of knowledgeamong consumers that the bottle was a returnable, with a refundabledeposit on it, and to where they could return this bottle . Of thoseconsumers who did not return a `returnable' bottle, 34% said thatthey thought this bottle was 'non-returnable', and 17% did not knowthat this bottle was returnable . Over 70% of these non-returningconsumers did not know what the deposit was on the returnablebottle, and a further 21% specified a deposit level that was less thanthe actual deposit level on the bottle .

The second and most frequently mentioned source of the difficultieswas the problems that consumers encountered in locating a retailerwho would accept their returnable bottles. Many consumers said thata retailer had refused to accept a returnable bottle that they had takento his shop . Not surprisingly, over half these consumers gave up intheir attempt to return the bottle which was then thrown away . Thisfinding was supported by the results of the bottle-returning exercisesin which, on average, five to six of each group of eight returnablebottles were rejected by the retailer . The retailers' replies in thequestionnaire survey also showed that most retailers stipulated thatthey would only accept certain types of bottles .

Thus it appears that the reasons for UK consumers' failure toreturn bottles are more complex than the conventional simplediagnosis that consumers `just cannot be bothered to return bottles' .These surveys also indicate that, instead of mere acceptance of thelow and declining rates of returning bottles by UK consumers asinevitable and irremediable, there are positive measures which couldbeneficially help to halt these current trends and could even raisetrippage rates .

How trippage of returnable bottles can be increased

Raising deposit levels . This is the traditional remedy that has usuallybeen adopted in the past in an attempt to halt declining trippage .However, further increases in deposit levels would aggravate the


23 The 'gross' price (inclusive of thedeposit) of a litre bottle of soft drinks iscurrently about 30p. The deposit on thisbottle is usually ep so that the 'net' coststo the consumer who now returns thebottle would be about 22p, or 27% lower.The. 'net' prices of beer and cider areabout 14-15% lower than their respective'gross' prices.34 Under this Bill, The deposit on anycarbonated beverage container must berefunded by any retailer or wholesalerwho sells that same kind, brand and sizeof the bottled beverage' . See C.M. Gudgerand K .D. Walters, 'Beverage containerregulation : economic implications andsuggestions for model legislation',Stanford Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol 5,1976,pp265-290 .3°The example given here is only forillustrative purposes. Further study wouldbe required to determine the actual levelof any differential deposit and the depositpremium .

0



problems the deposit system presents for bottlers/brewers andretailers. Moreover, increasing deposit levels above current levelswould not be very effective at present, because so many consumerseither do not know what the deposit is on the bottle now or think thatit is less than the current deposit level . The deposit is supposed to actas an inducement to compensate the consumer for the inconvenienceof returning bottles. Therefore, rather than just raise the depositlevels, it would be more effective and efficient to alter this other aspect(the inconvenience of returning bottles) by making it easier forconsumers to return bottles .

Consumers' ease of returning bottles . This could be improved by anumber of measures . These include :

Giving consumers more information that a bottle is returnableand has a deposit on it . Some soft drinks manufacturers atpresent put such information on their bottle tops and labels .Other bottlers and brewers should give serious consideration,especially when they are redesigning their labels, to putting somereadily identifiable feature on their labels or tops so that theconsumer can see that a bottle is returnable with a deposit on it .Such information should also be displayed in shops and off-licences, where more retailers should clearly and separatelyidentify the fact that there is a refundable deposit (currentlyhidden) in the `gross' price of beverages in returnable bottles . Thiswould allow consumers to perceive the lower true or `net' price ofthese beverages when returning bottles and getting their moneyback." This should increase the demand for beverages inreturnable bottles by those consumers who now return thebottles ; it would also enable those consumers who are unwillingto return bottles to see the actual money they are forfeiting bybuying a returnable bottle and not returning it for the depositrefund. This would encourage them either to decide that it is nowworthwhile for them to return the bottle or, if they do not intendto return the bottle, to purchase a non-returnable bottle .Standardization of bottle shapes, on its own, would not havemuch effect on increasing trippages of returnable bottles in thepresent circumstances in the UK beverage market. In the bottle-returning exercises, standardized returnable bottles were notaccepted by the retailers as frequently as were the distinctivelyshaped bottles . 46 of the total of 129 rejected bottles were of thesame size and standard shape as the beverage bottles sold by theretailer .Increased acceptance of returned bottles by the retailers is alsorequired. This may be achieved better by incentive measuresrather than regulations, such as the mandatory deposit refundclauses of the Oregon Bottle Bill ." One possible measure toencourage retailers to accept more returned bottles is the use of adifferential deposit system whereby, for example, the retailerspaid to the bottlers deposits of 72p/dozen full beverage bottles,and then received deposits of 84p/dozen empty bottles returnedto the bottler 2 5 The retailer would thus receive a handlingpremium, in the example above, of 12p for each dozen returnedempty bottles that he accepts from the consumers and returnsback to the bottler, who is thereby saved from having to buymore new bottles .

295


296

Some consumers in the consumer survey said that they would returnmore bottles if they received a discount on their next purchase as wellas their deposit refund . Therefore, in the example above, thisdifferential deposit could perhaps be used by retail chains to financesuch a discount or credit so that, along with the deposit refund of4-10p on each bottle, consumers also received an additional discounttowards their next purchase of Ip for each returnable bottle that theyhad brought back. Benefits from such a measure would accrue toconsumers, retailers and bottlers . Consumers would benefit from thediscount on their additional purchases and would also lose less moneyin forfeited deposits on the returnable bottles if retailers would acceptback more of these bottles. Consumers, when they returned thebottles to the shop, would receive their deposit refund on each bottleand would also be notified of the additional discount on any goodsthat they then purchased. Hence it is likely that these consumerswould then purchase extra items in that shop, and this could beexpected to result in an increase in the sales of retailers and bottlers,who would also get their bottles back . Hopefully such an incentivemeasure would encourage more retailers to consider the positivesales-generation benefits of performing the task of handling thereturned empty bottles .

The results of the surveys indicate that, if retailers accepted morereturned empty bottles, then this would ease the major difficultycurrently experienced by UK consumers in returning, or ratherattempting to return, their bottles. The above, or other possible,measures of achieving an increased acceptance of returned bottles byretailers would be a more effective and efficient method of increasingthe trippage and life of a returnable bottle than would furtherincreases in the deposit levels, with their concomitant problems forboth consumers, bottlers/brewers and retailers .

Limitations of surveys

In the course of this study it was only possible to undertake theretailers' survey in one area of the UK - Leicester - and in theconsumers' survey, 178 householders and children were interviewedfrom only two areas - Leicester and Colwyn Bay - although thesurvey in Leicester did include the four main different types of urbanhousing . Therefore, further information is still required on the variousissues that have been raised in this study . In this respect, it is mostencouraging that in the UK, the Manchester Business School, withthe assistance of Blackburn Borough Council and the ManpowerServices Commission, has recently initiated the North West WasteReclamation Project . Among other things, this project team will beundertaking a retailers' survey and a consumer survey, covering1 500 households in Blackburn, Lancashire, in order to ascertainattitudes to recycling waste and returning bottles . This project shouldyield useful additional information on the issues presented in thisarticle .

ConclusionThis article demonstrates the importance of the returnable bottle'strippage to the current controversy over returnable v non-returnablebeverage containers. From the currently available information and



data, it appears that trippage rates in the UK beer and soft drinksmarkets have been declining in recent years, and that they are lowerthan trippage rates currently achieved in overseas beverage markets .

Further increases in deposits above their current levels cannot beexpected to have much effect on trippage rates because at presentmost consumers either do not know what the deposit level is or thinkthat the deposit on the bottle is less than its actual level now . A moreeffective method of raising the trippage of returnable bottles would beto make it easier for consumers to return these bottles . This wouldprobably be accomplished best by giving the consumer moreinformation, on the bottle's label and at the retail outlets, that thebottle is returnable with a deposit on it, and by achieving a greateracceptance of returned empty bottles by the retailers, perhaps throughthe use of a differential deposit system .


297

the return of returnable bottles: a study of consumers' and retailers' attitudes and...

Documents