Delivering Scotland's circular economy: Proposed Circular Economy Bill - Consultation analysis

4. Findings

Below is an overall summary of the sentiment per theme (Table 4) and proposal (Table 5).

Table 4: Overall summary of the sentiment per theme

	Most common score	Overall average score	Individuals’ average score	Organisations’ average score
Theme 1	5.00	4.87	4.62	4.17
Theme 2	5.00	4.86	4.62	4.11
Theme 3	5.00	4.83	4.48	3.89
Theme 4	3.00	3.98	3.79	4.16
Average	4.5	4.64	4.38	4.08

Table 4 above shows the most common sentiment score and overall average sentiment per respondent type for each theme. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The theme for which the overall average sentiment rating is the highest are Theme 1 and Theme 2. The ones for which it is lowest are Theme 3 and Theme 4. The individuals average score is higher than the organisations’ average score in Themes 1, 2 and 3, while the organisations’ average score was higher in Theme 4.

Table 5: Overall summary of the sentiment per proposal

	Most common score	Overall average score	Individuals’ average score	Organisations’ average score
Proposal 1	5.00	4.91	4.71	4.50
Proposal 2	5.00	4.91	4.76	4.38
Proposal 3	5.00	4.79	4.37	3.60
Proposal 4	5.00	4.51	4.61	4.32
Proposal 5	5.00	4.86	4.44	3.93
Proposal 6	4.00	4.09	4.08	4.10
Proposal 7	4.00	4.87	4.40	4.01
Proposal 8	5.00	4.26	4.32	4.16
Proposal 9	5.00	4.25	4.32	4.12
Proposal 10	4.00	3.39	3.45	3.26
Proposal 11	5.00	4.09	4.38	3.54
Proposal 12	5.00	3.97	3.74	4.18
Proposal 13	5.00	3.99	3.97	4.00
Average	4.85	4.38	4.28	4.01

Table 5 above shows the most common sentiment score and overall average sentiment per respondent type for each proposal. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The proposal for which the overall average sentiment rating is the highest are Proposal 1, Proposal 2 and Proposal 5. The ones for which it is lowest are Proposal 10, Proposal 12 and Proposal 13.

4.1 Theme 1 - Strategic Interventions

4.1.1 Proposal 1 - Circular economy strategy obligation

Question 1: Do you agree there should be a duty on Scottish Ministers to publish a Circular Economy Strategy every 5 years?

Table 6: Quantitative analysis of Question 1

Answer	Number of answers	%	Individual	%	Organisation	%
Yes	277	87%	174	88%	103	84%
No	9	3%	6	3%	3	2%
Neither agree nor disagree	34	11%	17	9%	17	14%
Total	320	100%	197	100%	123	100%

Table 6 above shows that of the respondents who answered this question, 87% answered yes, 3% answered no and 11% neither agreed nor disagreed. The campaign responses did not answer this question.

Question 2: Do you have any further thoughts on a statutory duty to produce a Circular Economy Strategy?

Table 7: Quantitative analysis of Question 2

Answer	Number	%
Completed	1,533	91%
Blank	148	9%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.68
Individuals’ average score	4.71
Organisations’ average score	4.63

Table 7 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 4.68 and the individuals average score was 4.71 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.63.

Please note: this question was responded to as part of a campaign. This should be taken into account when considering the sentiment score analysis.

As can be seen, excluding campaign responses which did not answer the closed question, the majority of respondents were very supportive of a statutory duty to produce a circular economy. Campaign responses were included in the open question, again demonstrating high support for the proposal. Among those most supportive, the following main themes identified in the responses included comments on the need for robust monitoring and evaluation, collaboration across government departments, authorities and stakeholders, the need to ensure alignment with existing and future policies, and the potential for the development of a sustainable economy. Most respondents agreed that due to the fast-evolving nature of the environmental crisis, the strategy should be reviewed every five years, with some suggesting that even more regular reviews may be necessary. Some also believe that there should be a requirement to report on progress via the development of performance indicators and metrics.

Those supportive of the strategy made the following suggestions:

• It should be aligned with legislation such as the Waste Framework Directive, National Waste Management Plan and Net Zero Road Map.
• It would be useful to align as far as possible with strategies from the other devolved nations so that cross-border collaboration is easier and confusion for businesses minimised.
• Collaboration with industry stakeholders would ensure the strategy’s effective implementation, and that sector-specific plans (mentioned by respondents included the built environment and marine sector, as well as in the campaign responses) should be developed. These sector level resource plans should be created collaboratively and aim to minimise resource requirements, ensure the sustainable sourcing of materials and incentivise circularity once materials enter the economy.
• Tax incentives and levies could be used to contribute funding to circular economy efforts as well as the potential of the strategy to enable the creation of green jobs and skills.

There was a sense that the strategy must address the full circular economy including circular design provisions: some respondents stated that the proposals seem too focused on waste management and not enough on manufacturing. It must also be ambitious enough to tackle resource use and complex materials. Some noted that legislation is not in itself enough to effect change, and that behavioural change is needed, driven by education, incentives and penalties. A reservation noted by some respondents is that a short-term strategy may risk an overdependence on ‘quick wins’, so a longer-term plan is needed to ensure its success. Some also noted that such regular reviews of the strategy may risk increased administrative costs. Some felt that the strategy would not help businesses or the economy, and is thus a waste of resources, especially as existing targets are often not currently met.

4.1.2 Proposal 2 - Statutory targets - consumption reduction, reuse and recycling

Question 3: Do you think we should take enabling powers to set statutory targets in relation to the circular economy?

Table 8: Quantitative analysis of Question 3

Answer	Number of answers	%	Individual	%	Organisation	%
Yes	271	86%	183	92%	88	76%
No	10	3%	7	4%	3	3%
Neither agree nor disagree	33	11%	8	4%	25	22%
Total	314	100%	198	100%	116	100%

Table 8 above shows that of those who answered this question, 86% answered yes, 3% answered no and 11% neither agreed nor disagreed. The campaign responses did not answer this question.

Question 4: Do you have any comments in relation to proposals to set statutory targets?

Table 9: Quantitative analysis of Question 4

Answer	Number	%
Completed	1,519	90%
Blank	162	10%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.90
Individuals’ average score	4.52
Organisations’ average score	4.36

Table 9 demonstrates that the response to this proposal was largely positive. The most common sentiment was 5, while the overall average score was 4.90. The average score from individuals was 4.52 and from organisations 4.36.

Please note: this question was responded to as part of a campaign. Please take this into account when considering the sentiment score analysis.

Overall, there was a common acknowledgement that voluntary waste-based and resource consumption targets had largely been ineffective and focused too narrowly on recycling. As such, there was a need for a robust framework of evidence-based targets was needed to meet Scotland’s circular economy goals. Campaign respondents also stated that these targets should take into account the impact of the Scottish economy abroad, for example the impact of imported goods.

The majority of the respondents were strongly in favour of the introduction of statutory targets to monitor and reduce Scotland’s consumption rates and increase reuse and recycling. These needed to be science-based and SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely) that relevant to the outcomes identified, while also being sufficiently ambitious to drive changes in public and organisational behaviour. To achieve this, it was acknowledged that a robust monitoring framework was required that included a proportionate enforcement regime to encourage compliance, such as tax-based incentives.

However, there was tension between granularity of detail required. Many respondents, including campaign respondents, encouraged the Scottish Government to consider ways of introducing full carbon and material footprint targets in order to drive policies that reduce overall raw material consumption. Suggested tools for this were Material Flow Analysis (MFA), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) methodology that could be introduced to understand the environmental impact of waste and consumption related activities. These targets should align with the waste hierarchy, such as repair, while prioritising rare earth mineral recycling rates for cobalt, nickel and lithium.

Several respondents raised the issue of proportionality, indicating that smaller organisations and local authorities could be penalised or otherwise negatively impacted by the financial burden of complex reporting due to inadequate resourcing. While, targets were required to ensure polluters were held accountable, it was equally important that SMEs had the resources and knowledge to comply. These respondents highlighted a need for regulations of products, not just statutory targets in order to guide product manufacturers to design for reuse, repair and recycling.

Finally, targets were seen as important to benchmark progress towards circularity. However, there was also a need for policy alignment across the UK and consideration for how these statutory targets would interact with incoming environmental policies, such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and the Deposit Return Scheme (DRS), to avoid unintended consequences or perverse incentives.

The following suggestions were made:

• Targets must have equal status and importance to domestic carbon reduction targets, with carbon-based consumption targets set in primary legislation.
• Statutory targets should be set as soon as possible and no later than 2025. New targets should include material and carbon footprint targets, a reuse target and a more ambitious food waste target of 50% by 2030.
• There should be a focus on harmonised requirements across the UK with the Devolved Nations, including Northern Ireland, so that businesses may operate freely without excessive administrative burden, and are able to transport products to maximise efficiency and to help reduce the cost of the supply chain.
• Assess which business sectors and communities could opt to demonstrate leadership in circular economy practices and outcomes, in order to encourage and delivery of targets/programmes more speedily.
• The Bill must include a duty on the relevant minister to report annually on the new circular economy targets to increase accountability.

4.1.3 Proposal 3 - Establishment of circular economy public body

Question 5: Should a dedicated Circular Economy public body be established?

Table 10: Quantitative analysis of Question 5

Answer	Number of answers	%	Individual	%	Organisation	%
Yes	187	60%	134	68%	53	46%
No	34	11%	21	11%	13	11%
Neither agree nor disagree	91	29%	41	21%	50	43%
Total	312	100%	196	100%	116	100%

Table 10 above shows that when excluding answers that did not address this question, 60% of the respondents answered yes, 11% answered no and 29% neither agreed nor disagreed. The campaign responses did not answer this question.

Please note: due to some overlap between the responses to Question 6 and Question 7, the following analysis is based on responses to both questions.

Question 6: Please provide evidence to support your answer to question 5.

Table 11: Quantitative analysis of Question 6

Answer	Number	%
Completed	1,535	91%
Blank	146	9%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.66
Individuals’ average score	4.78
Organisations’ average score	4.47

Table 11 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00 and the lowest 1.00. The overall average score was 4.66 and the individuals average score was 4.78 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.47.

Question 7: If a Circular Economy public body were to be established, what statutory functions should it fulfil?

Table 12: Quantitative analysis of Question 7

Answer	Number	%
Completed	1,526	91%
Blank	155	9%
Total	1,681	100%

Please note: these questions were responded to as part of a campaign. Please take this into account when considering the sentiment score analysis.

Respondents were relatively split on the establishment of a dedicated circular economy public body. Of those in support, comments identified a number of main functions that such a body should fulfil. These included the impartial and independent monitoring of progress against targets set in the strategy alongside the enforcement of rules and any penalties incurred. It was also felt that a public body should play a role in increasing public awareness of the circular economy and in supporting Scottish businesses to meet their goals. The body, it was felt, should be comprised of international experts across a range of areas including policy, economics, sustainability and design, and conduct research (as well as further other research and innovation activities) to provide valuable knowledge and tools to the Scottish Government and Scottish businesses. In particular, some noted the importance of advising the Scottish Government and ministers and providing policy recommendations, though it should be noted that others were clear that the body should remain politically unbiased and independent of the Scottish Government and from the delivery of any policy recommendations.

Alongside the above functions, which represent the most discussed from the responses, there were a number of more specific functions suggested, including:

• Working to improve city infrastructure and public transport, and their relationship with local ecosystems.
• Overseeing waste infrastructure, and monitoring material flows and reuse.
• Conducting research into circular economy and its potential impact on poverty and welfare.
• Regulatory powers such as taxation and enforcement of a carbon tax.
• Investment for pilot schemes and sustainability initiatives.
• Networking, skills development and training opportunities.
• Provision of design advice including eco-design and retrofits.

There were some reservations regarding the establishment of a new public body: at this point some felt that more detail was required regarding its duties, powers and accountabilities. There was some disagreement as to whether such a body should have legal/regulatory powers or operate in an advisory capacity. In addition, a number of respondents felt that there was not enough distinction between the role of this new body and existing ones such as ZWS, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) and Scottish Enterprise. It was not clear whether a new body would have additional benefits, and some respondents felt that it would have an additional bureaucratic and administrative burden, costing more money for taxpayers. Some also felt that the functions delivered by a public body should be fundamental within the Scottish Government, and that a new body would overstep the powers of local authorities. Instead, many respondents suggested that the remit of ZWS be expanded and formalised so it could fulfil the same duties – indeed, it should be noted that in general, respondents who were opposed to the formation of a new public body were not fundamentally opposed to its potential remit but simply the over-cluttering of the bureaucratic landscape. In particular, it was stressed that anybody should ensure that its functions do not conflict with EPR and DRS administration.

4.2 Theme 2 - Reduce and Reuse

4.2.1 Proposal 4 - Measures to ban the destruction of unsold durable goods

Question 8: Do you agree that the Scottish Government should have powers to ban the destruction of unsold durable goods?

Table 13: Quantitative analysis of Question 8

Answer	Number of answers	%	Individual	%	Organisation	%
Yes	261	86%	181	92%	80	75%
No	14	5%	11	6%	3	3%
Neither agree nor disagree	28	9%	5	3%	23	22%
Total	303	100%	197	100%	106	100%

Table 13 shows that of those respondents who answered this question, 86% answered yes, 5% answered no and 9% neither agreed nor disagreed. The campaign responses did not answer this question.

Question 9: Do you have any comments in relation to proposals to ban the destruction of unsold durable goods?

Table 14: Quantitative analysis of Question 9

Answer	Number	%
Completed	194	12%
Blank	1487	88%
Total	1681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.17
Individuals’ average score	4.20
Organisations’ average score	4.14

Table 14 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 4.17 and the individuals average score was 4.20 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.14.

The majority of respondents were strongly in favour of a ban of the destruction of unsold goods. This was necessary measure to reduce the over-production of goods and enforce sustainable stock control measures for producers. By extension it was noted that this would have a positive impact on reducing an organisation’s material consumption rates, and connected biodiversity loss associated with resource extraction.

For those in favour of a ban, it was also recognised that while this would cause short-term teething pains, there was potential for longer-term benefits as shops and factories would have to think more wisely about their stock management practices. This in turn, however, would require education campaigns to ensure consumers understood the impacts of in-built obsolescence. A small proportion of respondents saw opportunities to combine this ban with manufacturers’ EPR obligations, to ensure that manufacturers take responsibility for taking unsold products back and recovering their components.

Within the context of a cost-of-living crisis, some respondents considered this to be the “right thing to do”, highlighting donation as a more sustainable and socially valuable route for unsold products. It was noted that the Scottish Government should consider creating a library of organisations in areas across Scotland where unsold products can be donated to, or where businesses can partner with reuse and repair organisations so that products can be effectively reused. Respondents not in favour of a ban, however, noted that donating unsold goods may simply be unfeasible, and potentially lead to “landfills of unsold goods” for donation.

Some of the respondents indicated that they were not in favour of a ban on the destruction of unsold goods, largely due to the additional costs that this would bear on businesses. Reasons for this included:

• A need for a more robust definition of which goods would be targeted under this ban.
• Issues surrounding enforcement, such as companies finding loopholes and a lack of use for unsold goods.
• The ban will need well-funded enforcement and investigation systems.

Question 10: Are there particular product categories that you think should be prioritised?

Table 15: Quantitative analysis of Question 10

Answer	Number	%
Completed	192	11%
Blank	1,489	89%
Total	1,681	100%

When asked which product categories should be prioritised for the ban of unsold goods, 21% of suggestions were for textiles and clothing, and 21% electrical goods. These are high-profile, hard-to-recycle product categories typically characterised by significant social (poor working conditions), carbon and environmental (rare earth mineral extraction, land-use change, marine pollution) impacts associated with their production and the high volume of waste generated by high product turnover, either due to fast fashion business models or in-built and planned obsolescence.

More generally, it was advised that the Scottish Government should take into account life cycle analyses, such as Zero Waste Scotland’s carbon metric to target products with “high environmental impacts” across their entire lifecycle (resource extraction, use and disposal), as well as those with the highest reuse potential. Connected to this category was the need to prioritise products that used “plastic”.

Food, furniture and products containing rare materials each received around 5% of suggestions as product categories requiring prioritisation. Several respondents also noted the high refurbish and reuse potential of furniture as a reason for its prioritisation, as well as a desire to incentivise quality and eco-design principles in furniture’s production.

Question 11: Are there product categories that should be excluded from such a ban?

Table 16: Quantitative analysis of Question 11

Answer	Number	%
Completed	157	9%
Blank	1,524	91%
Total	1,681	100%

40% of respondents indicated that no product categories should be excluded from a ban on unsold goods, with caveats for products that were not feasible for reuse, products where their end destination was unclear, and where reuse or recycling might be prohibitively expensive. This is aligned with the idea that in a circular economy waste is designed out at the design stage.

The main consideration for respondents when considering a product category from exclusion of the ban revolved around safety issues. This relates to the potential risks of hazardous materials being kept in storage for long periods of time (e.g. leaching into the environment), sanitary and other health and safety concerns. For example, several respondents highlighted sanitary risks associated with the storage and potential reuse of PPE, pharmaceutical and medical products. Around 50% of responses related to potential safety issues.

Similarly, food products that had gone beyond their “use by” date and was no longer edible for human consumption was highlighted by 7% of responses for potential exclusion from a ban on the destruction of unsold goods.

4.2.2 Proposal 5 - Environmental charging for single-use items

Question 12: The previous consultation showed broad support for the proposal that Scottish Ministers should have the power to set charges for environmentally harmful items, for example single-use disposable beverage cups. Is there any new context or evidence that should be taken into account in relation to this proposal?

Table 17: Quantitative analysis of Question 12

Answer	Number	%
Completed	198	12%
Blank	1,483	88%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	4.00
Overall average score	3.91
Individuals’ average score	3.98
Organisations’ average score	3.84

Table 17 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 3.91 and the individuals average score was 3.98 compared to the organisations’ average score of 3.84.

This proposal had relatively high support. A number of respondents stated they would support an outright ban on all single-use plastics (some respondents would make an exception for healthcare settings, those with additional health needs, and for infection control reasons, while another would support the reuse of certain medical equipment). Respondents were keen to point out the worsening environmental conditions which should make a charge on environmentally harmful items a priority. Some supported the widening of a charge on environmentally harmful items to sectors such as fast fashion and manufacturing waste.

Respondents noted the success of the carrier bag charge and stated that this should be extended to single-use cups; it was also posited that this could lead to a reduction in littering. Some respondents stated that measures should be accompanied by advertising campaigns to ensure public awareness. Some also expressed that prior to a charge/ban on single-use items, the Scottish Government must ensure the availability of sustainable alternatives and use incentives to make reusable items the preferred option for businesses. Others noted that LCAs should be conducted comparing single-use and durable alternatives to ensure the best option is prioritised, and that a clear definition of ‘environmentally harmful’ is needed.

Where there were reservations mainly surrounded the cost-of-living crisis – a number of respondents thought that imposing additional costs on consumers would disproportionately affect more vulnerable members of society.

Further reservations included the points that compostable plastics that are seen as sustainable alternatives contaminate traditional plastic recycling streams, so without better public understanding regarding waste streams, the move to innovative materials may do more harm than good. Furthermore, biobased plastics, though not produced from fossil fuels, still have the same impact at disposal as traditional plastics. It was also felt that more should be done to address high impact unrecyclable household goods and products sold online that may skirt charges and levies. It was also noted that a charge on single-use items may duplicate charges from schemes such as EPR and DRS, placing additional burdens on consumers, while one respondent though it would be better to legislate to ensure that all disposable items are recyclable. Finally, it was felt that requirements and charges should be harmonised across the devolved nations to reduce administrative burden, and that sufficient time should be allowed to businesses to ensure their compliance with new measures.

The following suggestions were made:

• Support should be given for consumers to recycle items and make environmentally friendly items more affordable and readily available.
• Charges should be focused further up the supply chain to attempt to reduce the burdens on consumers or be imposed as taxes to ensure equal impact across society. However, there was additional concern about the potential impact on businesses who may be struggling post-Covid and amidst the energy crisis.
• Income from these charges should be reinvested into communication on waste segregation and improvements to waste infrastructure.

Question 13: Do you have any further comments on how a charge on environmentally harmful items should be implemented?

Table 18: Quantitative analysis of Question 13

Answer	Number	%
Completed	1,517	90%
Blank	164	10%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.90
Individuals’ average score	4.55
Organisations’ average score	4.03

Table 18 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 4.90 and the individuals average score was 4.55 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.03.

Please note: this question was responded to as part of a campaign. Please take this into account when considering the sentiment score analysis.

There were a range of comments from respondents to this question, including how the charge should be implemented and for what the funds should be used. In general, it was felt that there should be a robust policy development process to ensure an appropriate scope. There was a split between those respondents who felt that a charge would be better faced by businesses versus those who felt that charges on consumers would be the best way to effect behavioural change. For those respondents who believe that a business-focused charge would be a better option, a number felt that the charge should be as high up the supply chain as possible – in other words, that manufacturers should be financially discouraged from producing the goods in the first place. Others felt that a levy on the wholesale cost of goods would be a useful option, while there was also a warning that importers are not excluded from a charge. Some also felt that repeat ‘offending’ should mean that businesses are subject to higher fines and potentially even business closure.

Those with reservations warned against the risk of unintended consequences including the potential for competitive disadvantage for local producers in comparison to multi-national corporations. It was noted that a transition period and support for businesses would be needed to ensure that they are not negatively impacted. Finally, some respondents felt that education would be a better measure to reduce single-use plastic, as a small charge would not deter consumers.

Respondents who preferred a consumer-facing charge felt that it should be clearly visible at the point of purchase, and some felt it should be significant enough to encourage the use of reusable items. However, others warned about the cost-of-living crisis and that any costs imposed on businesses may simply be passed to the consumer. It was also felt that a program of communication with consumers would help to raise awareness of the charge. Campaign respondents felt that the best way to minimise waste is to provide incentives to encourage reuse and recycling.

The following suggestions were made:

• The income from the charge should be used to pay for the reprocessing of the material, improving recycling infrastructure and reinvestment into the circular economy and research and innovation activities.
• The charge should be dependent on the product’s environmental impact or the cost of waste disposal, or subject to regular increase with a ban on single-use items as the end goal.
• Taxes should be tailored in such a way that makes less harmful items more affordable.
• Any charges should be harmonised with DRS and EPR legislation.
• Specific policies should be implemented for harmful substances.
• There should be robust enforcement of fly-tipping legislation.

4.2.3 Proposal 6 - Mandatory reporting of waste and surplus

Question 14: The previous consultation showed broad support for the proposal that Scottish Ministers should have the power to require mandatory public reporting of unwanted surplus stock and waste. Is there any new context or evidence that should be taken into account in relation this proposal?

Table 19: Quantitative analysis of Question 14

Answer	Number	%
Completed	145	9%
Blank	1,536	91%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	4.00
Overall average score	3.91
Individuals’ average score	3.98
Organisations’ average score	3.84

Table 19 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 3.91 and the individuals average score was 3.98 compared to the organisations’ average score of 3.84.

As displayed in the quantitative analysis, responses as to whether Scottish Ministers should have powers to require mandatory public reporting of unwanted surplus stock and waste were generally varied with most responses in favour of such powers being on a conditional basis and identifying a number of criteria that should be fulfilled in order for the proposal to be considered a success.

Those answers which supported the proposal drew upon the need to prioritise items with the highest life-cycle impact, environmental & social costs, and re-use potential. There was also a shared notion that the implementation of mandatory public reporting should incorporate robust data collection while ensuring public transparency, thereby highlighting the reasons for goods being deemed as surplus or waste in an accessible and easily understood way. Providing conditions of this nature are met, it was generally held that the initiative would have a positive impact and the potential to drive awareness of carbon impacts and foster better decision-making among consumers.

There were also an almost equal number of reservations regarding the proposal to require mandatory public reporting. These were namely that such a proposal could prove to be burdensome for smaller organisations who may lack the capacity to fulfil the reporting requirements set out by Scottish Ministers. Indeed, for reporting to be successful, there was a consensus that a cohesive and aligned approach to data collection would be needed.

Further concerns were raised suggesting that without proper enforcement of the proposed reporting requirements, there would be scope for an increased risk of fly-tipping.

The following suggestions were made in relation to the proposal:

• Reporting requirements, if implemented, should be applied more stringently for larger organisations, and extended to supply chains.
• The "off-shored" cost of production should always be determined, in terms of environmental hazard created, with importers, assemblers, and manufacturers receiving hefty penalties for the use of environmentally unfriendly products. Equally, incentivising waste reduction should be considered.
• The food redistribution approach proposed by Defra should be considered.
• Clearer information on procedures for where products should go to avoid stockpiles and hazardous waste.

Question 15: The previous consultation showed broad support for the proposal that food waste should be a priority for regulations. Is there any new context or evidence that should be taken into account in relation this proposal?

Table 20: Quantitative analysis of Question 15

Answer	Number	%
Completed	141	8%
Blank	1,540	92%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.32
Individuals’ average score	4.24
Organisations’ average score	4.39

Table 20 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 4.32 and the individuals average score was 4.24 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.39.

The majority of the respondents were in favour of the suggestion that food waste should be prioritised for regulation.

Perhaps the most widespread theme among responses, drawing on the current cost of living crisis, highlighted the potential social benefits to be reaped from the redistribution of food, as well as the clear reduction of food waste that this initiative could facilitate with a suitably cohesive framework in place.

Several responses also noted the requirement of a clear definition on what constitutes food waste, encouraging the use of a food waste hierarchy and further investment in public health strategies.

Another key message from respondents was the need to divert as much food waste from landfill as possible, given the extent of Scotland’s greenhouse gas (GHG)M emissions that can be accounted for through this waste stream. A number of suggestions were made as to how this could be achieved, including:

• Requiring full value chains to embrace food reporting structures, rather than solely retailers.
• Removing product “use by” dates to encourage greater use and less waste.
• Using food waste for communal composting, generating electricity and reduced packaging for food items.

Other suggestions included:

• Policy should change to enable food banks to accept fresh food from suppliers and that Scottish Government should investigate avenues for collaboration with charities in this sector, such as Shield.
• Where redistribution is less possible, some respondents suggested implementing kerbside food recycling.

Question 16: Are there other waste streams that should be prioritised?

Table 21: Quantitative analysis of Question 16

Answer	Number	%
Completed	172	10%
Blank	1,509	90%
Total	1,681	100%

The waste stream the most frequently mentioned in the responses as to which should be prioritised was “clothing and textiles” (12%), with some respondents highlighting the rife waste and inequality in this sector, particularly fast fashion brands. This was followed by plastic (8%), electronics and packaging (7%), and food and construction (6%). Worth noting that 5% of the respondents said that all streams should be prioritised, another 5% that streams with the highest environmental impact should be prioritised.

4.3 Theme 3 - Recycle

4.3.1 Proposal 7 - Strengthening approach to household recycling collection services

Question 17: The previous consultation showed broad support for the proposal that Scottish Ministers should have powers to place additional requirements on local authorities in order to increase rates and quality of household recycling. Is there any new context or evidence that should be taken into account in relation to the proposal?

Table 22: Quantitative analysis of Question 17

Answer	Number	%
Completed	1,497	89%
Blank	184	11%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.88
Individuals’ average score	4.44
Organisations’ average score	3.85

Table 22 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 4.88 and the individuals average score was 4.44 compared to the organisations’ average score of 3.85.

Please note: this question was responded to as part of a campaign. Please take this into account when considering the sentiment score analysis.

While the majority of respondents agreed there was a need to increase the rates and quality of household recycling, a key challenge observed was the need for additional funding to support local authorities in delivering high quality waste management services. A common theme throughout the responses was the connection between a lack of funding and inconsistencies in plastic, glass, food waste, and garden waste recycling services across Scotland. This was regarded as a significant factor in poor recycling and high contamination rates of household recycling. It was noted this particularly impacted isolated and underfunded communities.

Single stream collection methods were deemed counterproductive, increasing confusion among households and contributing to recycling waste contamination.

Private waste management companies responding to the consultation expressed concern over the potential impact of DRS on the profitability of local authority recycling services due to the diversion of recyclable single-use drinks containers.

Some respondents were significantly against placing additional requirements on local authorities to increase rates and quality of recycling without adequate behaviour change strategies.

Campaign respondents felt that an overall system shift is required: rather than just focusing on recycling, the way materials are used must be fundamentally changed to reduce the impact of consumption.

Suggestions made by respondents included:

• Local authorities could work on improving interventions at the household level by redesigning collection services to encourage householders to prioritise recycling (e.g. by reducing the collection frequency and size of bins for non-recyclable waste). This comes with the caveat that increased difficulties for collection services may have the unintended consequence of increased fly-tipping.
• It was suggested that the lack of engagement of individuals could be addressed with public awareness and education strategies.
• Review of international best practice for financing effective waste management services. Italy was cited as an example for implementing a Polluters Pay Principle to financially incentivise recycling.
• Several respondents raised the issue of food waste and garden waste collection, recommending government investment in recycling infrastructure, with a focus on anaerobic digestion centres for biowaste streams.
• Support local authorities to develop effective engagement communication strategies to regularly inform residents of updated recycling services.

Question 18: The previous consultation showed broad support for the principle that there should be greater consistency in household recycling collections. Is there any new context or evidence that should be taken into account?

Table 23: Quantitative analysis of Question 18

Answer	Number	%
Completed	1,479	88%
Blank	202	12%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.91
Individuals’ average score	4.53
Organisations’ average score	4.08

Table 23 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 4.91 and the individuals average score was 4.53 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.08.

Please note: this question was responded to as part of a campaign. Please take this into account when considering the sentiment score analysis.

A majority of respondents positively agreed with the sentiment that there was new context for greater consistency in household recycling collections, including the campaign responses. It was felt that greater consistency would make it easier for households to recycle.

There were several benefits that were highlighted from taking this approach. From a household perspective, there was broad agreement that greater consistency would resolve issues around the confusion on which household recycling bin to use. Respondents highlighted dissatisfaction with the “postcode lottery” of current recycling provision. Removing this confusion, it was assumed would make the process more recognisable and convenient and therefore boost public participation. This would also have a positive effect on tourist recycling habits. It was recognised government investment was needed for recycling centres.

It was often mentioned that a standardised approach would bring additional benefits. Indeed, several respondents called for greater consistency across all recycling collections.

A smaller proportion of respondents disagreed with consistent household recycling collections. Several respondents highlighted the fact that consistency is not necessarily a guarantor of recycling quality. Others argued that local authorities are best placed to make decisions on recycling provisions for their area. Similarly, others noted that it was important to consider contextual issues, such as regional and local differences, and spatial distribution of rural, urban and island communities, as well as differences in housing stocks – all of which might make a consistent approach challenging both economically and for logistics.

Several respondents noted that current end markets for recyclate are volatile, and government investment and policy support is needed to help develop these markets further.

Respondents suggested the following best practice reviews to investigate household recycling collection services:

• Research should be carried out looking at Recycling Best Practice for local authorities. Questions such as “Do we have to pay commercial waste recyclers to achieve this service offering?” should be considered, looking at whether it is more cost effective to outsource these capabilities to private companies or whether Scottish Government should enable local authorities to carry out this activity with sufficient funding.
• Research should be carried out looking at international waste service models and their applicability in Scotland, such as those provided in the Spanish model, that provides consistent recycling bins across all urban centres, and the Italian model that has been able to prioritise biowaste streams.

Question 19: The previous consultation showed broad support for the principle of moving away from the current voluntary approach to Scotland’s Household Recycling Charter towards a more mandated approach, whereby implementation of the Charter and its supporting Code of Practice becomes a statutory obligation. Is there any new context or evidence that should be taken into account?

Table 24: Quantitative analysis of Question 19

Answer	Number	%
Completed	122	7%
Blank	1,559	93%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	4.00
Overall average score	3.79
Individuals’ average score	3.58
Organisations’ average score	4.00

Table 24 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 3.79 and the individuals average score was 3.58 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.00.

Generally, respondents were either supportive or neither agreed nor disagreed with this policy.

Creating a mandatory charter was viewed by a majority of respondents as the only way of ensuring consistency in recycling collections and increasing accountability for individuals to recycle. It was thought that the approaches highlighted within a statutory charter should prioritise the most sustainable waste management processes. Some noted that it is the manufacturer’s responsibility to ensure products are recyclable, so manufacturing organisations should also need to comply with the statutory obligation. Others showed broad support; however, funding was a common concern, with several respondents indicating that any new statutory obligations must be fully costed, and funding provided to local authorities. One solution for the funding and incentivise positive behaviour change was to follow the Swiss model and tax excess waste and the non-compliant of recycling.

There was general agreement that the systems changes must incorporate the change to waste streams that will be brought in by EPR and DRS, with several indicating that funds collected from EPR, and DRS should be reinvested into reuse and recycling services via local authorities. However, failure to align the Charter to the EPR and DRS reviews may have the unintended consequence of eroding public confidence in the service altogether. As such, to ensure positive behavioural change, several respondents noted the importance of communication and engagement strategies. It was also considered important to have some flexibility to provide collection systems appropriate to different types and densities of cities.

There was also concern over enforcement and whether a mandatory approach would work. Challenges such as holding transient populations (students) accountable for poor recycling would make enforcing statutory responsibility challenging. Others questioned the fairness of enforcement for people who cannot or do not want to recycle, with the threat of a criminal record being seen as excessive. Several respondents highlighted that it would be important to understand why some local authorities have not made progress on implementing the voluntary charter before implementing any further changes. Others highlighted the need to prioritise feasibility studies to assess whether local authorities would have the capacity to process the increase

4.3.2 Proposal 8 - The role of targets to support recycling performance

Question 20: Do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to introduce statutory recycling targets for local authorities?

Table 25: Quantitative analysis of Question 20

Answer	Number of answers	%	Individual	%	Organisation	%
Yes	247	84%	169	87%	78	79%
No	20	7%	14	7%	6	6%
Neither agree nor disagree	26	9%	11	6%	15	15%
Total	293	100%	194	100%	99	100%

Table 25 shows that when excluding the respondents who did not answer this question, 84% answered yes, 7% answered no and 9% neither agreed nor disagreed. The campaign responses did not answer this question.

Question 21: If you agree with Q.20, do you agree that Scottish Ministers should have the power to introduce and set financial incentives for local authorities to meet these targets, or penalties should these targets not be met?

Table 26: Quantitative analysis of Question 21

	Number of answers	%	Individual	%	Organisation	%
Yes	212	75%	144	77%	68	69%
No	26	9%	16	9%	10	10%
Neither agree nor disagree	46	16%	26	14%	20	20%
Total	284	100%	186	100%	98	100%

Table 26 above shows that when excluding those who did not answer this question, 75% of the respondents answered yes, 9% answered no and 16% neither agreed nor disagreed. The campaign responses did not answer this question.

Question 22: Please explain your answer.

Table 27: Quantitative analysis of Question 22

Answer	Number	%
Completed	207	12
Blank	1,474	88%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	4.00
Overall average score	3.82
Individuals’ average score	3.75
Organisations’ average score	3.91

Table 27 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 3.82 and the individuals average score was 3.75 compared to the organisations’ average score of 3.91.

Broadly, respondents were supportive of introducing powers for the Scottish Government to set and enforce recycling targets. The majority of respondents greatly favoured incentives over penalties. It was noted that local authorities are often underfunded already and should not be penalised for individual circumstances such as high levels of deprivation or geographical isolation. Respondents stated that targets should be tailored to location and conditions, and that the Scottish Government should fully fund any changes necessary for local authorities to meet these targets through grant funding. There was also a belief that authorities should be given the opportunity to explain why targets were missed, and that if this is due to a lack of waste infrastructure then penalties should be avoided. Some respondents believed that any incentives should be temporary until circular economy thinking is embedded in the country, while others warned about a clash between the financial aspect of other reforms that are currently progressing (e.g. DRS, EPR). It should be stated that some respondents were supportive of penalties, either as a last resort or to punish those not complying with regulations.

Some felt that households must be informed of any change in recycling targets, and that authorities should share expertise and best practice with communities to ensure that targets are met. Others felt that penalties would be better implemented at the household level, with fines for incorrect waste segregation in place of local authorities -wide fines. A number of respondents highlighted the Welsh statutory recycling targets as a best-practice example from which to learn, while others stressed the need for a harmonised approach across the devolved nations, especially in light of the developing UK-wide packaging reforms.

For those not supportive of the measure, some felt that more clarity and a greater evidence base was needed to assess the benefits of targets. Others felt that too much pressure would be placed on local authorities (particularly local authorities with greater funding challenges), particularly with regard to financial penalties, and that waste producers should be regulated first. Some were worried about the cost to consumers and felt that the Scottish Government should take more responsibility. Finally, it was stated that local authorities have little influence over participation or composition of household waste, so interventions are needed at the design stage.

The following were suggested by the respondents:

• Local authorities-wide targets dependant on circumstance would be useful so long as the overall national target remains ambitious, though some noted that aggregation at a national level may be problematic.
• Targets should not be at the expense of other environmental issues, and that there should be a focus on proportion of waste sent to each end destination to ensure effective segregation.
• Recycling targets may lift the focus from reuse onto a less desirable outcome, but one possible solution to this might be avoiding volume-based targets in favour of percentage-based ones (for example, a percentage of items not reused should be recycled).
• Costs from this scheme should not be passed to the taxpayer but potentially be funded by EPR fees.
• Any income could be used to invest in waste infrastructure in Scotland, particularly centralised recycling that would benefit island and rural communities.

4.3.3 Proposal 9 - The Duty of Care for households

Question 23: The previous consultation showed broad agreement that householders’ existing obligations are not sufficient. Is there any new context or evidence that should be taken into account?

Table 28: Quantitative analysis of Question 23

Answer	Number	%
Completed	131	8%
Blank	1,550	92%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	4.00
Overall average score	3.85
Individuals’ average score	3.79
Organisations’ average score	3.92

Table 28 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score is 5.00, the lowest is 1.00. The overall average score was 3.85 and the individuals average score was 3.79 compared to the organisations’ average score of 3.92.

Generally, respondents indicated agreement with the view that householders’ existing obligations are not sufficient, due to low participation rates and little incentive to recycle.

A key challenge identified by several respondents was an issue of enforcement. A large number of respondents highlighted the fact that there was currently limited action taken on anti-social behaviours or poor recycling behaviour especially within multioccupancy areas. In response, several respondents indicated that local authorities should have the power to issue fixed penalty notices and fines to correct behaviour and ensure household obligations are met. A significant cultural and behavioural shift was needed, and it was felt non-compliance should be called-out and tackled robustly. Incentives such as Pay as you throw (PAYT) or “Save as you recycle” schemes were suggested as solutions. It was also acknowledged that fixed penalty notices would be challenging to enforce, and some respondents felt it was unfair to place blame on householders when there was very little accountability for tourists, who were blamed for poor recycling habits.

While others agreed that fixed penalty notices would have a positive impact in ensuring household obligations are met, some respondents indicated any change in householder responsibility would need to be combined with public awareness campaigns to educate citizens on what can and cannot be recycled. These respondents highlighted a need for better signposting, labelling and guidance for recycling infrastructure would be needed.

Connected to the need for greater public awareness was an issue of fairness. Several respondents indicated that householders tend to do their best, however, their capacity to fulfil their existing obligations was limited by a number of factors including lack of access to adequate or convenient recycling services, and limited control over the recyclability of the packaging items. Indeed, a number of respondents highlighted the fact that manufacturers had a responsibility to improve the recyclability of the items they sold, as well as provide transparent information to customers so their products can be disposed of responsibly.

A common sentiment shared across respondents in favour and against the proposal, was the fact that if local authorities were to enforce accountability for better recycling, there would have to be greater standardisation of recycling services and education provided to citizens. This is the responsibility of local authorities and the Scottish Government.

Question 24: Do you agree with the principle that local authorities should have more powers?

Table 29: Quantitative analysis of Question 24

Answer	Number of answers	%	Individual	%	Organisation	%
Yes	228	80%	159	83%	69	75%
No	19	7%	13	7%	6	7%
Neither agree nor disagree	37	13%	20	10%	17	18%
Total	284	100%	192	100%	92	100%

Table 29 above shows that when excluding those who did not address this question, 80% of the respondents answered yes, 7% answered no and 13% neither agreed nor disagreed. The campaign responses did not answer this question.

Question 25: Please add any additional comments.

Table 30: Quantitative analysis of Question 25

Answer	Number	%
Completed	149	9%
Blank	1,532	91%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	4.00
Overall average score	3.70
Individuals’ average score	3.62
Organisations’ average score	3.80

Table 30 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 3.70, the individuals’ average score was 3.62 and the organisations’ average score was 3.80.

There was general support for this measure though there were some reservations. Indeed, there was a fear that fines could negatively impact vulnerable groups as well as be difficult to enforce. Some noted the limited accessibility of some recycling facilities (for example, the lack of glass kerbside collections in parts of Scotland), potential language barriers that may limit understanding, and a lack of storage for recycling in smaller flats. Regarding enforcement, it was noted that a significant number of households in Scotland use communal collection systems and that additional resources would be needed for monitoring and enforcement.

The following suggestions were made for how to improve householder participation in recycling including:

• Increased communication and public awareness from local authorities, particularly regarding recyclate contamination.
• Better labelling of products and bins.
• Consistency and simplicity of recyclability and recycling facilities across local authorities.
• Better disposal options for large items.
• New housing estates to be built with central waste and recycling points.

A number of respondents were not supportive of the measure, for various reasons. Some thought it may lead to an increase fly-tipping to avoid fines and unfairly punish accidental mistakes. Others prefer encouragement over enforcement and disliked the notion of strict policing of confusing rules. There was a sense that the time and money would be better spent developing the recycling infrastructure. Finally, a number of respondents felt that the focus on recycling does not address the route of the problem. Ultimately, the proposals should emphasise a reduction in consumption, not just an increase in recycling. Support should be provided to manufacturers at the design stage to reduce single-use plastics and make the recycling of items easy (i.e., limited mixed materials). It was felt that households have little control over opportunities for recycling of packaging materials and so more attention should be placed on upstream activities from manufacturers and retailers.

Other suggestions made by the respondents included:

• Measures such as increased surveillance, investigation, landfill monitoring and fines imposed for non-compliance would help to increase positive behaviours. Germany was noted as an example of a country which fines householders for incorrectly discarded waste.
• Reward good compliance and integrate means to promote repair and reuse into the waste system.

4.3.4 Proposal 10 - Incentivising waste reduction and recycling (households)

Question 26: Are there further powers, if any, for Scottish Ministers, and/or local authorities, that should be considered in order to incentivise positive household behaviours, to support waste reduction and increased recycling in Scotland?

Table 31: Quantitative analysis of Question 26

Answer	Number	%
Completed	163	10%
Blank	1,518	90%
Total	1,681	100%

This proposal had relatively high support, with a small number of mixed thoughts on whether any extra powers would be needed or not. However, respondents mainly focused on incentivising recycling with limited comments on waste reduction. A number of respondents stated that they would support a council tax rebate or a reduction in council tax for correct recycling. Some also supported the proposal to incentivise good behaviour and to pay individuals who are complying with recycling. A small number of comments were made on the fact that ministers should be given extra powers to provide funding support to recycling organisations who successfully divert items away from landfill. In contrast to the respondents who supported council tax reductions/rebates, other respondents stated that they thought local authority tax did not have a significant contribution to collection and recycling rates and would not be an effective incentive.

Some respondents noted that education for both adults and children was key and disagreed with any enforcement as this would be expensive. It was also noted in some of the responses that if charges were to be introduced, then this should only be done once all households have access to sufficient recycling infrastructure and services. Other respondents who disagreed with any enforcement stated that best practice from other devolved nations such as Wales should be taken into account, and that behaviour change campaigns would be more beneficial.

A small number of respondents thought that financial penalties should be put in place for persistent offenders for not recycling. However, a number of respondents also had their reservations about any financial penalties for failing to recycle, for example a small number of respondents stated that this may further disadvantage households who are already experiencing economic hardship.

Other suggestions were made on how to incentivise waste reduction and recycling including:

• Increasing the number of local area collection points.
• Statutory requirements for reuse facilities at HWRCs.
• Greater consistency across Scotland on an agreed residual capacity which will encourage the use of reuse schemes and recycling containers.

Question 27: Are there any other legislative measures that you consider Scottish Government should take to strengthen recycling and reuse at a household level, helping accelerate the rate and quality of household recycling in Scotland?

Table 32: Quantitative analysis of Question 27

Answer	Number	%
Completed	126	7%
Blank	1,555	93%
Total	1,681	100%

There was a wide range of suggestions for other legislative measures. Some respondents answered with measurable ways of strengthening recycling and reuse for example, a common suggestion was that an annual volume per household (based on household size) should be deployed at HWRCs. Other respondents stated that stronger mandatory legislation should be put in place for producers of packaging and products to act more environmentally responsible. There was also a view that the private sector could manage HWRCs which could allow for greater investment, with a focus on re-use operations rather than disposal and integrated reuse/repair shops.

A number of respondents stated that national consistency in recycling needed to be established, since it can be confusing for the consumer on what they can and cannot recycle. Greater education and behaviour change of householders was also stated as something which needed to be put in place before any legislation is introduced. Consistent communication and ease of access to this information for the public is also something which a small number of respondents stated in their responses. Some respondents also pointed out the impact of schemes such as EPR and DRS needing to be quantified.

A small number of respondents stated that the Scottish Government should work with local authorities to ensure they have access to adequate recycling and reprocessing facilities. It was also suggested that legislative measures should be put in place for holiday accommodation providers to ensure that guests are using the services properly, introducing penalties for non-compliance.

Question 28: Please add any additional comments

Table 33: Quantitative analysis of Question 28

Answer	Number	%
Completed	89	5%
Blank	1,592	95%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	4.00
Overall average score	3.39
Individuals’ average score	3.45
Organisations’ average score	3.26

Table 33 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score is 5.00, the lowest is 1.00. The overall average score was 3.39 and the individuals average score was 3.45 compared to the organisations’ average score of 3.26.

It was found that from the respondents who answered question 28, many were reinstating what was said in question 27. A small number of respondents stated that there should be a statutory obligation for all householders to comply with recycling schemes, and that fines should be introduced for those who do not comply as a last resort. Better education was a common response, with respondents stating that there should be campaigns put in place to target people of all ages to promote behaviour change.

There was also the view that householders would not need to worry about their recycling or consumption habits if products available on the market were easily recyclable. These respondents stated that the focus on householders was the wrong approach, and that producers and manufacturers should be taking responsibility instead. Other respondents stated that there was too much focus on recycling and that emphasis should be on reuse and repair. It was also stated that there should be access to easy-to-read ‘repair it yourself’ guides, access to independent repair organisations and access to parts at a reasonable cost to promote circularity, rather than the introduction of fines and financial incentives.

Respondents suggested the following:

• It is more important to reduce the amount of waste that householders generate in the first place, for example by reducing packaging.
• Penalising householders is unfair since producers are often the source of the problem and consumers sometimes cannot avoid buying single use plastic packaging items and the problem will not be solved until there is action from manufactures.

4.3.5 Proposal 11 - Business recycling collection zoning

Question 29: Do you agree with the principle of Scottish Ministers, and local authorities if appropriate, taking on the necessary powers to explore and trial commercial waste zoning approaches in Scotland?

Table 34: Quantitative analysis of Question 29

Answer	Number of answers	%	Individual	%	Organisation	%
Yes	186	66%	142	76%	44	46%
No	21	7%	9	5%	12	13%
Neither agree nor disagree	75	27%	36	19%	39	41%
Total	282	100%	187	100%	95	100%

Table 34 above shows that when respondents who did not answer the question are excluded, 66% answered yes, 7% answered no and 27% neither agreed nor disagreed. The campaign responses did not answer this question.

Question 30: Please add any additional comments.

Table 35: Quantitative analysis of Question 30

Answer	Number	%
Completed	105	6%
Blank	1,576	94%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	4.00
Overall average score	3.13
Individuals’ average score	3.17
Organisations’ average score	3.11

Table 35 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 3.13 and the individuals average score was 3.17 compared to the organisations’ average score of 3.11.

Opinions on this proposal were relatively mixed. Those in support stated their belief that such a measure could improve waste collection efficiency, help to standardise both collections and treatment and reduce travel miles. There was also a sense that the increased transparency would be beneficial to improving recycling rates as well as standards for carbon accounting and waste destination reporting, and that it could potentially improve anaerobic digestion capacity development. Some stated that it could reduce the impact on SMEs, though noted that the views of local businesses and commercial organisations should be considered, with a consistent dialogue between the Scottish Government and industry. Others disagreed and stated that the zoning could negatively affect SMEs. It was felt by some that the Regulatory Reform Act 2014 should be revisited and reworded to ensure clarity.

The need for such a measure to be cost-effective was stressed. Some felt that there must be a consideration of local factors, with the suggestion that a small-scale trial would be useful in a larger city but might not be economical for smaller local authorities, though some stated that commercial zoning may work in rural communities or areas where business waste does not require specialist treatment. There was a split between respondents who thought the proposal would help businesses with the cost of waste management versus those who thought it would be a hindrance.

In general, more clarity on the commercial waste zoning proposal was requested, with significant further investigation and trials required. A number of risks were identified, including:

• Anti-competitiveness, particularly for SMEs, and the risk of monopoly creation.
• Enabling reuse or those unable to compete for zoned services.
• Incomparable data between different zones.
• A reduction in choice and restrictions on wholesale vehicles.
• Adverse effects for local authorities carrying out commercial waste collection, especially in rural areas.
• Previous unsuccessful pilots.
• Inability for bespoke private services to operate.
• Inefficiency of subcontracting services and increased bureaucracy.
• Higher cost to producers, lack of innovation and job losses.
• Contractual issues such as liability in case of industrial action or insolvency.

4.4 Theme 4 - Littering and improving Enforcement

4.4.1 Proposal 12 - New penalty for littering from vehicles

Question 31: The previous consultation showed broad support for the proposal that Scottish Ministers should have the powers to introduce a new fixed penalty regime for littering from vehicles. Is there any new context or evidence that needs to be taken into account?

Table 36: Quantitative analysis of Question 31

Answer	Number	%
Completed	129	8%
Blank	1,518	92%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.06
Individuals’ average score	3.77
Organisations’ average score	4.35

Table 36 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 4.06 and the individuals average score was 3.77 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.35.

While the majority of respondents are still supportive of the introduction of powers to introduce a new fixed penalty regime for littering from vehicles, many of these indicated conditional support, while others made points in opposition of the proposal. Please note that answers focused on support for the specific proposal rather than on new context or evidence. Indeed, many of those in favour of the proposal showed their support succinctly through brief responses such as simply stating; “Fully support”, “Good idea”, “Do it” or “Strongly agree”. Several other respondents elaborated on their support, suggesting that the proposal should extend to littering from boats at sea.

There was general support for the proposal, with some respondents citing a few positive impacts including improving biodiversity corridors along key travel routes and educating litterers. However, a number of reservations regarding the challenge of effectively enforcing the regime, in practice, were also made. These included mention of the lack of police resource and a tendency to ignore low level infractions. Doubts were also highlighted around being able to provide clear evidence that an offence had occurred and the potential expense of surveillance.

Some respondents suggested that it would be more effective to:

• Focus efforts on educational campaigns and communicating with households and communities to understand the impacts of roadside littering, while also providing more roadside bins to make waste disposal more convenient.
• Record points on the driving licences of those caught littering from their cars rather than imposing a fixed penalty.

Question 32: The previous consultation showed broad support for the principle that the registered keeper of a vehicle bears primary responsible for offences such as littering from or in relation to their vehicle (for example by passengers or people using that vehicle at that time). Is there any new context or evidence that needs to be taken into account?

Table 37: Quantitative analysis of Question 32

Answer	Number	%
Completed	99	6%
Blank	1,582	94%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	4.05
Individuals’ average score	3.82
Organisations’ average score	4.29

Table 37 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 4.05 and the individuals average score was 3.82 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.29.

Please note that answers focused on support for the specific proposal rather than on new context or evidence. Of those who answered Question 32, the range of responses varied, with some respondents displaying clear support for a principle that would impose full responsibility for offences such as littering from or in relation to their vehicle, in the belief that the principle would act as an effective deterrent and instil greater mindfulness of the consequences of littering in the registered keeper of any given vehicle. Similarly to Question 31, respondents often indicated they were in favour of the proposal through brief statements of support such as “Strongly agree”, “Good idea” “Should be investigated” and Full support”, and, as with Question 31, respondents also favoured extending the principle to boat owners.

Some added that obtaining information on the registered keeper from the Driver and Vehicle Licencing Authority (DVLA) databases would streamline the process. Others remarked that the registered keeper of the vehicle should be responsible in any case, including responsibility on behalf of minors who litter.

Others questioned whether any long-term behavioural change was likely to occur in the instance that a registered keeper was penalised rather than the original offender. Such respondents typically favoured a “preventative rather than punitive” course of action, with several responses highlighting penalties should only take place if the original litterer had already received some form of education and awareness training. Questions were also raised with regards to the consistency of application, favouring an approach where the litterer is fined.

Again, as with Question 31, reservations were consistently made with regards to the enforceability of the principle, pointing to the lack of police resource and the difficulty of being able to provide clear evidence that an offence had occurred.

4.4.2 Proposal 13 - Seizure of vehicles

Question 33: The previous consultation showed broad support for the principle that enforcement authorities should be given powers to seize vehicles linked to waste crime. Is there any new context or evidence that should be taken into account?

Table 38: Quantitative analysis of Question 33

Answer	Number	%
Completed	107	6%
Blank	1,574	94%
Total	1,681	100%

Most common score	5.00
Overall average score	3.99
Individuals’ average score	3.97
Organisations’ average score	4.00

Table 38 above shows the most common sentiment and average sentiment per respondent type for this question. The highest score was 5.00, the lowest was 1.00. The overall average score was 3.99 and the individuals average score was 3.97 compared to the organisations’ average score of 4.00.

Responses to this question were rather mixed. Some felt that such a measure would act as a useful deterrent. It was felt that the seizure of vehicles should be one tool in the toolbox, with the ability to seize other assets. This is complemented by the concern that some had with enforcement in the case that the driver of the vehicle is not the registered owner of the vehicle. Some stated that Scotland should align with England and Wales via the Clean Neighbourhood Act 2005.

A number of respondents questioned the ability to enforce this measure with current resources, and that investigation powers should be strengthened, and the reporting process reviewed.

Some had reservations that the measure is extreme, and that awareness training and education should be given before, or in place of, criminal prosecution. In particular, for some more vulnerable groups, the loss of a vehicle may impact their ability to work or sustain themselves. For others with more disposable income, or for organised illegal waste carriers, the proposal may not act as a deterrent, especially if the vehicle in question has limited value.

Respondents suggested the following:

• Fines should be high, with vehicles at risk of destruction in the case of repeated offences.
• Extending the proposal to other vehicles including vans and boats.
• Camera footage from nearby vehicles and bikes could be used in prosecution.
• There should be some scope to appeal

4.5 Theme 5 - Assessing Impact of Bill Proposals

4.5.1 Equality

Question 34: Taking into account the accompanying EQIA, are there any additional likely impacts the proposals contained in this consultation may have on particular groups of people, with reference to the ‘protected characteristics’ listed above?

Table 39: Quantitative analysis of Question 34

Answer	Number	%
Completed	100	6%
Blank	1,581	94%
Total	1,681	100%

This question spurred conflicting opinions. Indeed, some of the respondents believe that there will be additional impacts on particular groups of people. The key groups of people referred to were:

1) those with disabilities and health conditions.

2) those on low income.

3) those who struggle with language and understanding communications.

4) those with limited access to recycling services.

5) travelling communities.

6) reuse organisations/charities.

7) communities outside of Scotland.

Specifically, those living with disabilities, health conditions and/or pregnant women may struggle to dispose of their waste and access recycling facilities due to mobility restrictions. These groups of people may also produce large volumes of unavoidable single-use plastic waste (such as medical packaging and equipment), which may be difficult to dispose of appropriately.

Also, reference was made to deprived areas with limited access to recycling services, along with a lack of affordable easily recyclable products. The responses also suggested that additional support should be provided to communities in deprived areas. Similarly, those with limited access to recycling services was raised as a group which will likely be impacted upon. Specifically, ensuring recycling services are accessible to everyone, even to those without personal mean of transport.

Other impacted groups such as those with limited English proficiency, travelling communities and reuse organisations might rely on secondary materials for creating and selling upcycled products, and communities outside of Scotland may be impacted from handling waste materials arising in and exported from Scotland.

On the other hand, some respondents either responded vaguely to the question, stating there not be additional impacts on particular groups of people, or they believe that EQIA is not relevant to people recycling and disposing of their waste correctly.

4.5.2 Business and regulation

Question 35: Taking into account the accompanying BRIA, do you think that the proposals contained in this consultation are likely to increase or reduce the costs and burdens placed on any business or sector?

Table 40: Quantitative analysis of Question 35

Answer	Number	%
Completed	138	8%
Blank	1,543	92%
Total	1,681	100%

There were a number of detailed responses to this question, with respondents addressing their hopes and concerns surrounding the proposals contained in the consultation. Several themes were identified in these responses, including:

• There would be an increased cost and burden to businesses and sectors.
• There would be short-term increased costs, which are likely to be offset by savings in the long-term.
• Increased costs and burdens were not important because there is a need to implement circular practices and measures.
• Burdens will be disproportionally felt by small businesses, rural communities and those less privileged; and that support will be required from the Scottish Government.

The majority of respondents believe that the proposals would likely to lead to an increase in costs and burdens placed on businesses and industry sectors. Some specified that food and drink businesses would be most impacted, while others suggested that all businesses and sectors would experience an increase in costs. Some responses cited additional infrastructure, taxes and levies as the cause of cost increases. Some respondents felt that the cost impact on businesses would be passed onto the consumer.

Many respondents accepted that there would be initial cost increases, but that these would later result in longer term cost savings such as reduced procurement costs, increased reuse and reduced waste disposal costs. Some respondents mentioned that although they expect there to be an increase in costs, extreme measures are necessary. Some suggested that the cost to businesses should depend on the business’s environmental impact. Some respondents also believed that the increased costs would be mitigated by maximising the use of technology and through innovation.

Although respondents mentioned the increase in costs and burdens for businesses and sectors generally, some emphasised the fact that this would be disproportionately felt by SMEs, rural communities and more vulnerable groups.

Many respondents highlighted the need for the Scottish Government to engage with businesses and stakeholders. Some suggested that this would be required across all affected sectors in order to assess the impact of the proposals and to mitigate these. It was noted that this would be necessary during and after the implementation of any measures. Respondents also suggested that assistance and support would be needed in order for businesses to manage operational changes and to provide guidance on circular economy principles.

Very few respondents cited a reduction in costs as a possible outcome of the proposals contained in the consultation.

4.5.3 Children’s Rights and Wellbeing Impact Assessment

Question 36: Taking into account the accompanying CRWIA, do you think that the proposals contained in this consultation are likely to have an impact on children’s rights and wellbeing?

Table 41: Quantitative analysis of Question 36

Answer	Number	%
Completed	112	7%
Blank	1,569	93%
Total	1,681	100%

Several themes have been identified during this analysis. These include comments that the proposals would:

• Future-proof children’s lives.
• There would be an improvement in wellbeing and living conditions.
• Children will be more aware of environmental issues.
• Consideration must be made for rural communities and children from low-income families.

Some respondents suggested that the proposals would result in children becoming more sensitive to environmental issues; an increase in awareness of littering, fly-tipping and circular economy practices; and that this should be included in school curriculums.

Despite the above sentiments, many respondents felt that there would be no impact on children’s rights and wellbeing.

4.5.4 Islands Communities Impact Assessment

Question 37: Taking into account the accompanying ICIA, do you think that the proposals contained in this consultation are likely to influence an island community significantly differently from its effect on other communities in Scotland?

Table 42: Quantitative analysis of Question 37

Answer	Number	%
Completed	100	6%
Blank	1,581	94%
Total	1,681	100%

Overall, respondents felt that the proposals were likely to have an adverse effect on island communities, though some also noted that there may be positive outcomes as well. In terms of negative impacts, respondents noted the geographical isolation and issue of scale as key risks for island communities (some noted that similar issues may face remote communities on the mainland). In particular, it was felt that there is a lack of waste and recycling infrastructure on Scotland’s islands. This means that if there are major changes to recycling targets and waste infrastructure in Scotland then these islands will either face a prohibitive cost in the establishment of new infrastructure where demand may not be high enough, or significant costs in transportation to the mainland. This transportation of waste to the mainland may also be counterproductive in terms of carbon emissions, and lead to vermin and odour issues (for example, in the case that organic waste is transported to anaerobic digestion).

It was felt that these increased costs would divert resources away from island communities and place a higher burden on local companies and individuals. To mitigate this increased burden, respondents suggested:

• Make the proposals optional for islands to adopt when it is feasible for them.
• Make the proposals mandatory of islands to adopt but cover the additional costs such as transportation through taxation.
• Consult island communities directly, and potentially develop bespoke proposals that adjust to each island’s needs.
• Provide adequate support and funding from local authorities and the Scottish Government.

There was a sense among some respondents that there could be positive outcomes as a result of these proposals, particularly if adequate support was provided. Some felt that a focus on reduction and reuse of waste as part of the circular economy principles could reduce strain on local waste management facilities, as well as cost of waste disposal. There may also be opportunities to increase the amount of food grown and composted locally, leading to a beneficial outcome for food producers. Also, sustainable jobs may be created to meet the proposals’ targets.

4.5.5 Fairer Scotland Duty

Question 38: Taking into account the accompanying Fairer Scotland Assessment summary template, do you think that the proposals contained in this consultation are likely to have an impact in relation to the Fairer Scotland Duty?

Table 43: Quantitative analysis of Question 38

Answer	Number	%
Completed	93	6%
Blank	1,588	94%
Total	1,681	100%

A small group of respondents stated that the impact of the consultation proposals would have an impact that was “positive” or would have a “potential positive impact”. It was added that measures to reduce food waste, such as redistribution, and material sharing, could have a positive impact on local communities.

However, the most frequently recurring theme made reference to the potential negative impacts of the proposals within the consultation on socio-economically disadvantaged communities and low-income groups.

The concerns included:

• The likely disproportionate impact of charges and penalties on disadvantaged families.
• Poorer access to waste facilities given a lower access rate to personal vehicles.
• The potential costs of household waste services such as uplifting.
• Increased cost of living and costs of waste collection in rural areas.
• Increased business costs trickling down and impacting consumers on a lower income.

Comments of this nature were frequently accompanied with suggestions to facilitate equal access to all reuse and recycling services and affordable circular products. Emphasis was also placed on educational campaigns promoting the circular economy and other steps to increase levels of reuse.

Many respondents simply answered “no”, the proposals contained in the consultation are not likely to have an impact in relation to the Fairer Scotland Duty.

4.5.6 Environment

Question 39: Do you think that the proposals contained in this consultation are likely to have an impact on the environment?

Table 44: Quantitative analysis of Question 39

Answer	Number	%
Completed	187	11%
Blank	1,494	89%
Total	1,681	100%

Overall, respondents felt that the proposals would have a positive effect on the environment although some noted that this effect would be small and that an analysis should be carried out on proportionate impact relative to need. There was a sense from some of the respondents that the measures should be introduced carefully and that the impact of measures such as EPR and DRS should be taken into account by a mutually inclusive entity.

Some respondents stated that the measures introduced to charge for single-use disposable beverage cups would have a net-positive impact on the environment by mitigating waste and reducing littering. Respondents also thought that this would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the impact on land and water of products. The efficiency of waste collection that the measures would create was seen as a positive impact, as well as a reduction in carbon impact of householders and businesses. Other measures from the consultation which were seen to have positive impacts on the environment were:

• Reducing the use of raw materials.
• Encouraging correct waste segregation.
• Improved recycling infrastructure to deal with recyclate.

A small number of respondents had concerns that the proposals do not contain sufficient measures to mitigate the impacts of the climate emergency. Some responses stated that the measures in the consultation did not go far enough to regulate areas such as harmful chemicals and to eliminate the materials which cause the most problems from the waste stream. Other respondents claimed it would be hard to know whether there would be any environmental impacts until trial measures are put in place and data gathered is collated and analysed.

4.6 Other comments

Question 40: Do you have any other comments that you would like to make, relevant to the subject of this consultation, that you have not covered in your answers to other questions? - please specify

Table 45: Quantitative analysis of Question 40

Answer	Number	%
Completed	1,509	90%
Blank	172	10%
Total	1,681	100%

The answers to this question were varied and covered an extensive range of topics. The themes to be drawn upon from the more detailed answers were naturally multifaceted given the wide scope of the question and the host of significant issues brought to note by the respondents.

In order to provide a thorough overview of the multiple issues raised, while still ensuring that answers were well represented, the analysis was distilled into five core categories. Each of these comprise a number of themes which were recurring throughout the additional comments made by the respondents in this question.

Education and skills development opportunities

There were multiple themes which fell under the banner of education and skills development. It was frequently noted that to realise a fully circular economy, it is essential that members of society have a solid understanding of reuse and waste management. Several respondents highlighted that learning institutions need to model a circular approach across curriculums to better connect their local communities and foster a greater understanding of circularity.

A number of respondents commented that education is key. The institutions where education and learning take place need to model a circular approach across the curriculum, the campus and in connecting with their communities.

Many were keen to point out the importance of providing the consumer with sufficient information to align their consumer behaviours with the principles of the circular economy and thereby empower them to make informed decisions about the products and services being purchased. Some of these respondents suggested making use of Nudge Theory to help facilitate such behavioural change.

Remarks were made about the significance of using awareness campaigns and other means of raising awareness to instil more circular behaviours. Some felt that including creative industries within the scope of reuse and reporting targets and initiatives, particularly in terms of innovation and communicating issues, would be beneficial.

Distinguishing reuse from recycling and the demand for manufacturer responsibility

Perhaps the most common theme among responses nodded to the importance of distinguishing between reuse and recycling, with many emphasising that reuse strategies should take precedent over recycling. Some stated that recycling was environmentally damaging and that working to better manage resources already in the economy was key to ensuring they last longer and are reused more.

Some of these respondents felt that the Circular Economy Bill still leaned towards linearity and needed to include more on the total elimination of waste and ensuring products and materials circulate at the highest possible value.

On a similar note, the issue of built-in-obsolescence and the need for products to be specifically designed with repairability was raised frequently. Some respondents added that the proposal is directed too much towards consumers and householders rather than manufacturers, who several respondents felt, should offer repair services for broken items and be held accountable for unrepairable products.

Others commented on the importance of the Scottish Government working with industry to bolster EPR and ensure that waste minimisation is built into design rather than offering end-of-the-pipeline solutions.

Resources and adequate infrastructure

Equipping the public bodies responsible for monitoring and enforcing the proposed changes with adequate resources and funding was deemed vital to the success of Circular Economy Bill. Of these responses, many reflected on what they believed to be a dearth of funding for public bodies in relation to being able to realistically achieve the obligations set upon them through legislation and felt that setting sector level plans including an aligned budget were key to an effective transition to the circular economy.

Calls were made for increased funding in a number of areas. It was felt that investment in remanufacture, reuse and recycling facilities should be considered a crucial foundation for targets to be realised. Some placed emphasis on this point applying to rural areas where there were fears that proposals could drive up costs without all funding, investment, procurement and planning factoring in island assessments.

Cohesive policy and suggested initiatives

While several responses to Question 40 showed general support for many of the proposals within the consultation, there was a discernible common belief that proposals should not be created in a vacuum and rather closely consider how to best align with wider resource and waste strategy proposals. Respondents noted the need to take account of the many interconnected policy initiatives currently underway in the UK, including new waste directives, the Household Recycling Charter, Packaging Return Notes (PRN) reform and EPR, the introduction of a new plastic packaging tax and the DRS.

Responses often referred to greater cross-sectoral collaboration and cohesive policies being required across the different sectors of industry. Some respondents advised developing policies holistically to enable a more joined-up approach to realising the circular economy. It was felt that this approach could benefit from embedding Just Transition Principles throughout the various circular economy strategies across government and industry.

Among the responses referencing industry collaboration, there was a notable dissatisfaction with the level of attention afforded to circularity in certain areas such as agriculture, food production, construction and the built environment. However, these responses also praised the coverage received by other areas including waste management, textiles and electrical goods.

Respondents suggested several policy initiatives or further proposals they felt the bill should embrace. These included:

• Incentives to purchase and buy into circular models and disincentives for the continued purchase of linear, single-use products.
• Reallocating subsidies from destructive, carbon-intensive industries to industries championing reuse, remanufacture and repair.
• A top-down regulatory approach that starts with manufacturers and retailers before enforcing obligations against the consumer.
• Ensuring that full life-cycle assessments are carried out on alternative products and more thorough planning applications that consider waste generation.
• Greater collaboration with charity and local communities.
• Mandating circular economy and climate obligations in procurement strategies for public bodies.
• Developing socially inclusive policy in consideration of the needs of historically marginalised populations (e.g. women, BAME communities and disabled people).
• Untie welfare of citizens from material consumption of nation and help foster a greater understanding of the environmental and social impacts of taking from nature.

Concerns and notable omissions from the consultation

Many respondents highlighted personal concerns with, or what they believed to have been left out of, the proposal. The most common concerns were economic. Several respondents felt that the costs of implementing proposals would be shouldered by consumers. It was often added that this could have a damaging impact on socio-economically disadvantaged groups who are already feeling the strain of high inflation rates and the fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. These concerns were often accompanied with suggestions to increase public funding and utilise a top-down approach that regulates manufacturers and retailers more stringently. It was strongly felt among respondents that adequate support needs to be given to small businesses and communities. Incentivising circular business models through subsidies was suggested while disincentivising traditional linear behaviours were recommended.

Some responses also highlighted that greater stakeholder consultation on certain measures was required before being taken forward. This was common regarding topics such as commercial waste zoning and rural communities.

Other respondents felt that the bill did not fulfil the full criteria of the circular economy and expressed concerns that certain proposals were not ambitious enough. In particular, the idea that recycling should not substitute reuse recurred, with some responses suggesting that the bill should shift its focus from recycling to reuse, remanufacture and repair.

Multiple responses stated that the bill did not address the challenges faced by the construction industry and the huge impacts of construction waste. It was felt that these should be key considerations in advancing the circular agenda. Indeed, it was also acknowledged that a bespoke Circular Economy strategy for the construction sector, among others including agriculture and food production, should be developed.