Shoppers want less packaging, survey shows
Following Dave's post a few back, let's see the Indy and the Mail slug it out in saving us from the pack-attack.
I would point out that, in surveys, almost 100% of those asked say they recycle. Not exactly borne out by the facts. So when asked in the current climate (geddit) if you are in favour of something that is patently pure consumerist waste, you are unlikely to admit you are not. Actual desires and purchase behaviour may be slightly different, I suspect.
Ho-hum, now another massive bunch of data to wade through, and interpret for methodology and agenda-bias, before commenting on in detail here.
2 comments:
Its a shame the link doesn't provide the full results of the survey, only a copy of the actual questionnaire plus the supermarkets' current plans.
However, one quite enlightening stat that is included in the article is quite, well, encouraging.
"Seven in 10 believed they would have to alter the way they live if the planet was to survive. The shoppers said sustainability was the key issue for supermarkets and retailers in the next couple of years, ahead of low prices."
I think that's quite positive, albeit perhaps a little surprising that its as high as 7 out of 10. However, as you already mentioned, it is quite common for consumers to say one thing, and then do entirely another.
One question I'd like an answer to - is a poll of ~1300 considered sufficient to be representative?
That sample size seems to be used quite a lot in surveys I've seen quoted in the media. Like that makes it worth diddly.
Bearing in mind demographic spreads of age, income, etc, and also geography, it still seems a leap to reflect the thoughts and behaviour of 60M!
There's also the small matter of the circumstances in which the question is asked.
Stop an Earth Mother as she pops her Tofu packaging in the recycling bin may get you one answer, but asking the Yuppie in the 4x4 driving past might get you the same.
Who is going to say they won't change if it's a matter of survival? But if the subsequent decision process at the shelf is not in those terms, one supects the needs of the moment will dominate.
Unless there is something that makes it fair, and spreads the 'load' equally, I think human nature may make this an unselfish ideal few will voluntarily practice.
In matters such as consumer choice, I think this has be addressed at the top of the chain to be effective. If something is allowed to be made, and sold, it seems odd to allow it to get all the way to the poor shmo doing the weekend shopping to unravel all the issues and decide against a purchase.
If a 4x4, plastic water bottle or over-packaged, over-priced bottle of Lynx is the root cause of all eco-evil, then why allow them to be made, rather than all this effort being expended to stop people buying them on top of equally vast efforts and budgets to persuade them to do so?
Post a Comment