Single-Use Disposable Beverage Cups Charge: Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment

6. Options

The policy options considered in this analysis have been designed in line with the policy objectives set out above: to reduce the consumption of single-use disposable beverage cups and therefore reduce the environmental harm caused. Each option is compared against a common baseline which is the business-as-usual case. Full details of the costs and benefits for each policy option will be published in the final BRIA.

Non-regulatory options have been disregarded. The policy aims to implement secondary legislation using powers within the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill to introduce the single-use disposable beverage cups charge. As detailed above, there are already examples of voluntary approaches to charges and other similar measures from businesses and organisations across Scotland, but this has so far failed to achieve a reduction in the consumption of single-use disposable beverage cups.

The EPECOM report^[59] reviewed other measures to reduce the consumption of single-use disposable beverage containers which helps make clear why the regulatory approach of a charge has been chosen over other options. These include reusable cup discounts, mug-share schemes, bans (or voluntarily removals of single-use disposable beverage containers), and initiatives to increase recycling.

Per EPECOM’s findings, there is strong evidence that discounts are less effective than charges due to loss aversion theory, whereby people perceive losses (charges) as greater than that of gains (discounts). This makes charges more effective than discounts when customers are making price-based decisions. This makes it more likely that customers will reduce their consumption of single-use disposable beverage containers which may then lead to them bringing reusable cups instead.

Bans, either through regulation or voluntary action, can be effective, although can be disruptive to takeaway sales if imposed by individual retailers and not across the whole market. In many cases, bans have been accompanied by other measures such as mug-share schemes.

Initiatives to improve recycling do help to divert single-use disposable beverage containers from landfill, but the overall volumes recycled is small in comparison to the total placed on the market, and this does little to address the underlying issues of consumption of single-use disposable beverage containers. This is in line with the waste hierarchy, as prevention and reuse should be prioritised over recycling and disposal. Recycling and charge interventions could however operate in tandem, as they differ in terms of their impacts and are, to a degree, not substitutable.

In summary, the regulatory option of a charge has been chosen over other regulatory options and non-regulatory options as they do not change behaviour and reduce the consumption of single-use disposable beverage containers on a scale needed to deal with the problem of waste of single-use disposable beverage containers. These are, however, not mutually exclusive options, and others could be considered alongside a charge to minimise consumption and reduce the overall environmental burden.

Option 1: Business-as-usual or do-nothing approach. This would maintain the status quo, where sellers of beverages contained in single-use disposable beverage cups are not obligated to charge a minimum amount for the container.

Option 2: Implementation of a mandatory charge on single-use disposable beverage cups. This will make early use of powers within the Circular Economy (Scotland) Bill.