World Centric Resource Recovery Team
The new report put out by BPI and the Closed Loop Partners Center for the Circular Economy aims to inform on the effectiveness of compostable labeling in the marketplace. However, upon a close inspection of the study, many biases and lack of scientific protocol are apparent which render the study inconclusive in our opinion.
As a leading manufacturer in the compostable packaging space, World Centric has first hand experience with the challenges encountered in designing packaging that performs for consumer applications but can also easily navigate the waste stream to reach its intended destination: a commercial compost facility.
Because our intention is to design compostable packaging that contributes to the circular economy, we were eager to see the results of the recent consumer labeling report “Unpacking Labeling and Design: U.S. Consumer Perception of Compostable Packaging,” conducted by the Closed Loop Partners Center for the Circular Economy and the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI).
Because our intention is to design compostable packaging that contributes to the circular economy, we were eager to see the results of the recent consumer labeling report “Unpacking Labeling and Design: U.S. Consumer Perception of Compostable Packaging,” conducted by the Closed Loop Partners Center for the Circular Economy and the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI).
After reading the report, we could not determine whether this was actually a study with a detailed experimental setup, methodology and analysis or just a general survey being reported as a study. There are no details on the study itself - e.g. were there controls, how many designs were presented to each participant, what specific questions were asked, was there any statistical analysis of the data, etc.
Failure to present this information, as normally would be done in a formal study, makes us believe that there was a lack of scientific protocol and rigor and the results are based on a survey methodology, which may be significantly biased or inconclusive. In this scenario, even asking more than one question or presenting more than one design to each participant would bias the survey. For the remainder of this review, we will refer to this report as a survey.
Failure to present this information, as normally would be done in a formal study, makes us believe that there was a lack of scientific protocol and rigor and the results are based on a survey methodology, which may be significantly biased or inconclusive. In this scenario, even asking more than one question or presenting more than one design to each participant would bias the survey. For the remainder of this review, we will refer to this report as a survey.
As a leading manufacturer in the compostable packaging space, we support the circular economy that compostables can provide.
|
The survey aimed to evaluate consumers’ understanding of compostable products. The goal of the survey was “to identify effective design and labeling techniques to improve the diversion of food-contact compostable packaging to the appropriate material stream.” The results claim to provide insightful findings regarding consumer knowledge and recognition of various compostable products.
However, upon closer examination, the survey reveals limitations and biases in both design and in interpretation of the results. |
Consumers and composters alike share the intention to prevent contamination in the compost stream. Solutions are needed to help consumers sort waste correctly at the bin and to help composters quickly identify “contaminant” items that will not break down into compost.
As a partner and customer of BPI since 2007, we have great appreciation for the advancements they have made to the composting industry through their three strategic pillars: Certification-Education-Advocacy. Our concern lies with a survey conducted and reviewed by BPI and the conflict of interest as BPI has a large presence in the third-party verification space and will be requiring the inclusion of their logo on all BPI-certified products by the end of this year.
As a partner and customer of BPI since 2007, we have great appreciation for the advancements they have made to the composting industry through their three strategic pillars: Certification-Education-Advocacy. Our concern lies with a survey conducted and reviewed by BPI and the conflict of interest as BPI has a large presence in the third-party verification space and will be requiring the inclusion of their logo on all BPI-certified products by the end of this year.
|
One of the main biases in the design of the study is that only one symbol was presented on category images, the BPI logo. The absence of alternatives could inadvertently influence participants’ responses and limits the applicability of results by not knowing how the effectiveness of that mark compares to any other symbol or mark. BPI is not the only certifying body in the compost space and one mark is not representative of all credible marks.
Logos of other third-party certifiers of compostable products, like TUV Ok Compost or the Compost Manufacturing Alliance, could be found to produce a similar result. Company logos or other symbols beyond the BPI mark could elicit similar results for interpreting a mark to mean ‘compostable.’ It is also unclear whether the respondents interpreted the BPI mark as an action prompt to “improve the diversion of compostable packaging to the appropriate material stream.” |
The BPI mark may serve as an awareness tool but its ability to single-handedly influence correct diversion to the appropriate material stream is not supported with this survey.
|
Another major flaw of the survey is that it was done digitally showing pictures of products. This format provides a very different visual experience than with the actual product actually in hand. Embossed or printed marks, words, and colors show up differently on different material substrates and are not as readily identifiable as digital, high resolution pictures. As a result, it is difficult to extrapolate the results of a digital survey to real life applications where the elements are less prominent and visible on actual products.
For some of the “winning” designs, multiple design elements (striping, the BPI certification mark, and tinting) are included. Without providing the data for recognition of each of these design elements individually per product category, it cannot be determined which element would be the most effective on products. The omission misses the opportunity to aid manufacturers in adopting SKU-specific designs to increase consumer recognition of compostable products. The report does state, however, that the winning design across all 10 categories included a ‘Compostable’ call out while the BPI mark was identified in 9 of 10 categories. Furthermore, the study shows that including the BPI mark on molded fiber and cutlery increases identification by only 5-7%, which most likely is statistically insignificant.
For some of the “winning” designs, multiple design elements (striping, the BPI certification mark, and tinting) are included. Without providing the data for recognition of each of these design elements individually per product category, it cannot be determined which element would be the most effective on products. The omission misses the opportunity to aid manufacturers in adopting SKU-specific designs to increase consumer recognition of compostable products. The report does state, however, that the winning design across all 10 categories included a ‘Compostable’ call out while the BPI mark was identified in 9 of 10 categories. Furthermore, the study shows that including the BPI mark on molded fiber and cutlery increases identification by only 5-7%, which most likely is statistically insignificant.
The results did not provide convincing, statistically-significant evidence identifying a single labeling scheme that would guarantee successful capture of certified compostables.
|
“Because implementing changes in packaging design requires significant financial investment and time, it is essential to understand the feasibility of adopting new techniques across different product categories.” This statement embodies what we had hoped to see in the report; however, the results did not provide convincing, statistically-significant evidence identifying a single labeling scheme that would guarantee successful capture of certified compostables. We hoped this report would have made it obvious and clear what actually makes a compostable product readily and easily identifiable so it has the best chance of being properly discarded.
|
The results fail to prove that the inclusion of the BPI mark on all BPI-certified compostable products will significantly increase the capture of additional compostable products into the composting stream. The BPI mark may serve as an awareness tool but its ability to single-handedly influence correct diversion to the appropriate material stream is not supported with this survey. Solidly identifying which design scheme is the most effective is a collaborative win for the industry, consumers, composters, and manufacturers.
The study is self-described as a “stepping stone for the industry” and identifies three action steps for further exploration: Design, Educate, Collaborate. We agree that these are areas to continue to study and support expansion of research in the following areas to definitively “understand the feasibility of adopting new techniques across different product categories.”
The study is self-described as a “stepping stone for the industry” and identifies three action steps for further exploration: Design, Educate, Collaborate. We agree that these are areas to continue to study and support expansion of research in the following areas to definitively “understand the feasibility of adopting new techniques across different product categories.”
- Design a rigorous scientific study to test different design and labeling elements
- Use pictures or videos of real products with food, for a digital study
- Test materials against each other (fiber vs. plastic)
- Test recognition of other brand marks
- Test different design elements and colors, just not only a green stripe and green/brown colors
- Substantiate and correlate the results of the digital study with actual collection rates of compostables at events, where the same design elements as the study are used
- Use observational studies to isolate the factors that promote proper source separation of all material streams
- Quantify access to infrastructure to properly process source-separated materials
- Assess the impacts of disjointed policy approach on consumer comprehension and behavior
- Study the effectiveness of various educational programs and materials on successful sorting practices
- Quantify and categorize contamination at composting facilities
Author Profile
Resource Recovery Team at World Centric
