定位胆个位5码必中规律:Why the plastic bag bans triggered such a huge reaction

广东时时彩11选五 www.yya1n.com.cn AUSSIES went into meltdown over the supermarkets’ plastic bag, and with good reason — they violated an important rule.

Gary Mortimer and Rebekah Russell-Bennett
广东时时彩11选五July 17, 201812:13pm

The plastic ban is here0:57

Plastic bag bans have arrived - but is there more we can do to help? Take a look at the widespread effect single-use and large form plastics are having on our environment - and the changes you can enact now to make a difference.

A well-prepared shopper uses a green bag, a canvas bag and a reusable plastic bag to do their weekly grocery shop. Woolies stores in NSW, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia stopped providing free single-use plastic bags on June 20. Picture: Peter Rae/AAPSource:AAP

THE bans on plastic bags by Woolworths and Coles have been applauded by environmental groups, but were reportedly met with abuse and assault and claims of profiteering among customers. Even comedians saw value in the theatre of the bag ban.

This reaction is due to supermarkets breaching their “psychological contract” with customers. When both major supermarkets appeared to backflip in the face of irate customers it only compounded the problem.

Unlike written legal contracts, psychological contracts are a set of “unwritten rules” or “expectations” exchanged between the parties in a transaction. This can be between an employee and employer, or a customer and a retailer.

These understandings are often tacit or implicit. They tend to be invisible, assumed, unspoken, informal or at best only partially vocalised.

The pre-ban psychological contract between supermarket and shopper was something like, “I’ll shop with you and, in exchange, you’ll pack my purchases into a free plastic bag.”

There was an implicit financial exchange between parties. Shoppers spent money on groceries and the supermarket paid for providing a plastic bag.

With the bag ban, the psychological contract changed: “I’ll shop with you and give up a plastic bag, you’ll also give up plastic in the store in other areas, and the environment will benefit.”

Supermarkets justified phasing out lightweight plastic bags with the idea of a corporate social responsibility strategy. Customers might have been glad to forgo single-use plastic bans to support a greener future, but this is where the problem occurred.

Shoppers began to realise that supermarkets were saving money (by no longer giving away bags for nothing), while they themselves incurred a cost (paying 15 cents or more, depending on the type of re-usable bag).

The supermarkets had not kept up their end of the psychological contract by reducing the use of plastic in the store, particularly in packaging. The social media comments largely reflect this.

When there is a psychological contract breach, people can engage in revenge and retaliation.

This can range from mild, such as venting on social media, to acts of sabotage like altering floor stock and stealing shopping baskets.

These are the 15c plastic bags shoppers can now pay for. Picture: Peter Rae/AAP

These are the 15c plastic bags shoppers can now pay for. Picture: Peter Rae/AAPSource:AAP

COMPOUNDING FACTORS

A couple of other factors have compounded the perceived breach of contract.

Unlike smaller states and territories (South Australia, Tasmania, Northern Territory and the ACT) where state legislation has banned single-use plastic bags by all retailers, this was a retailer-imposed national ban.

Shoppers in these smaller states quickly became accustomed to not having free bags, as these were not available anywhere.

By simply backflipping soon after implementing the policy, the supermarkets also prompted shoppers to question their intentions and integrity.

While shoppers may have at first accepted the rationale for the ban, extended free bag periods sent the message that the supermarkets are not that serious about banning plastic bags for environmental reasons.

While Woolworths has said it will channel “money made” from selling its “Bag for Good” scheme into a youth environmental scheme, customers also rightly question the cost savings and revenues generated.

Removing a single-use plastic bag is a positive first step, but it is only the beginning. Customers still walk in to supermarkets today and see many varieties of food wrapped in plastic, and they themselves place loose fruit and vegetables into plastic bags.

As a result of media coverage, customers are now more aware and sensitive of plastics throughout dry grocery departments. They see more and more unnecessary plastic packaging, like dry pasta in a box with a clear plastic window.

This guy is nailing it. Picture: Peter Rae/AAP

This guy is nailing it. Picture: Peter Rae/AAPSource:AAP

FIXING THE PLASTIC BAG BAN

There is certainly enough evidence that removing single-use bags leads to positive environmental outcomes. But a national, uniform approach is needed, supported by consumer awareness and education programs.

While many state and territory governments have legislated plastic bag bans, others have held out. The Victorian Government last year announced plans to ban single-use plastic bags, but despite widespread consumer support, it is yet to come into effect.

Supermarkets need to be open about the financial aspects of plastic bags, both costs and revenues.

Consumers may understand the procurement and logistics costs of the replacement plastic bag options will be higher — because the bags are thicker and heavier, and it takes extra time to pack different-sized bag options.

The distribution of net profits (not gross profits) from the sale of all re-usable bag options should be channelled into sustainability programs, research grants and education schemes. Programs need to be benchmarked, measured and publicly announced.

Shoppers will be more accepting of change if they can comprehend how their small sacrifice (say 15 cents) is helping the environment.

Shoppers also have an important role to play in the scheme of things. While it will take some time to break old habits, responsibility rests with shoppers to remember to bring a bag. If they forget, they simply need to buy another one.

Ultimately, the psychological contract needs to once again be aligned and in balance. To do this governments, retailers and consumers need to work together to solve this important environmental issue.

This article originally appeared on The Conversation and is reproduced with permission.

MORE IN home

  • 北京进入旅游旺季 警察提示游客需防揽客者连环设套忽悠购物 2019-05-23
  • 有些人生怕别人不知道,他已经学会了1+1=2,所以到处炫耀。但有人说,有的时候1+1,大于2,他立马变痴呆了。 2019-05-22
  • 人民企业社会责任奖评选往期回顾 2019-05-22
  • 将“最多跑一次”改革进行到底 2019-05-21
  • 小猪小羊小狗齐上阵 憨态可掬的葡萄园里“小卫士”葡萄园Cakebread 2019-05-20
  • 21世纪马克思主义的实践贡献与时代价值 2019-05-19
  • 女性之声——全国妇联 2019-05-19
  • 中央再曝50名外逃人员藏匿线索 不少人级别高、影响大 2019-05-18
  • 安徽3年争取逾百亿资金 确保保障性安居工程建设 2019-05-17
  • 扬帆远航,胜利驶向充满希望的明天!——2018年全国两会巡礼 2019-05-16
  • 套餐不限量,大优惠还是文字游戏? 2019-05-15
  • 女排00后新星横空出世?打日本仅得4分 她还相当稚嫩 2019-05-14
  • 兴业银行获第十二届人民企业社会责任奖年度企业奖 2019-05-14
  • 和布克赛尔县节能降耗保卫蓝天小袋子改变大世界 2019-05-13
  • 呵呵,有见地,有深度。 2019-05-12
  • 962| 698| 740| 265| 489| 738| 371| 868| 523| 597|