577858

research-article2015
WMR0010.1177/0734242X15577858Waste Management & ResearchKasidoni et al.

Mini-review Article

Waste Management & Research

The existing situation and challenges

2015, Vol. 33(5) 419­–428
© The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
regarding the use of plastic carrier sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734242X15577858

bags in Europe wmr.sagepub.com

Maria Kasidoni, Konstantinos Moustakas and Dimitris Malamis

Abstract
Since day one, retailers and consumers have favoured plastic carrier bags. However, owing to the numerous environmental
disadvantages, lightweight plastic carrier bags have been drawing the attention of the European Union competent authorities.
Therefore, many European Union member states have taken action so as to reduce the use of plastic carrier bags. Based on the existing
legislation and voluntary initiatives for the reduction of lightweight plastic carrier bags, the challenges and achieved outcomes from
the implemented policy options in the various European Union member states are discussed and commented regarding the forthcoming
transposition of the ‘Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier
bags’ into the European Union member states’ national law.

Keywords
Single-use lightweight plastic carrier bags, behaviour change, environmental behaviour, policy evaluation, European Union member
states

Introduction
At world level, over one trillion plastic bags are used every year.
According to China Trade News, 3 billion plastic bags are con-
sumed daily only in China. In 2010, it was estimated that 98.6
billion plastic carrier bags were placed on the European Union
(EU) market and about 100 billion plastic bags have been placed
additionally every year since, according to the European
Commission (European Commission, 2013c). Therefore, on aver-
age, each EU citizen uses almost 200 disposable bags on an annual
basis and 8 billion of them end up in seas and other water recipi-
ents (European Commission, 2013b). It should be noted that
plastic bags remain toxic even after being broken down and con-
stitute the second-most common type of ocean refuse, after ciga-
rette butts (Ocean Conservancy, 2009). Every square mile of
ocean has about 46,000 pieces of plastic floating (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2006). At least 267 different species
are known to have suffered from ingestion or entanglement of
marine litter (Laist, 1997). The bags littering the coastline can
move for thousands of miles, affecting sea animals, such as tur-
tles, whales and seals, which mistake them for jellyfish. Coastal
birds, such as seagulls, are also in danger, because their diet
includes almost any food they can scavenge. A study conducted
for the wildlife in the North Sea presented that 96% of the dead
plastic bags have taken place in countries all over the world, such
as Israel (Ayalon et al., 2009) and Hong Kong (Legislative
Council Panel on Environmental Affairs, 2007). Furthermore,
there are voluntary agreements in Australia (Clean Up Australia,
2007), as well as prohibition of use as in the case of San Francisco
(Ayalon et al., 2009). As far as the EU is concerned, although
plastic carrier bags were listed under the Packaging and Packaging
Waste Directive 94/62/EC (Official Journal of the European
Communities L 365/10, 1994), there has been no legislation tar-
geting this major challenge (European Commission, 2013d) until
recently. Therefore, studies were formerly conducted, such as
assessments for the environmental, social and economic impacts
from the plastic carrier bag consumption, as well as evaluations
of scenarios regarding the future use of plastic carrier bags, after
the implementation of different policy options. As a result, the
Directive 94/62/EC was amended in order to incorporate the
reduction of the consumption of plastic carrier bags with a thick-
ness of below 0.05 mm in the European Union Member States
School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of
Athens, Athens, Greece

seabirds had swallowed plastic fragments (Derraik, 2002; Corresponding author:

O’Brine and Thompson, 2010; Rios et al., 2007).
Based on the above, the use of plastic carrier bags has become
one of the most important issues to be addressed by the compe-
tent authorities. Several initiatives for the limitation of the use of
Konstantinos Moustakas, National Technical University of Athens,
School of Chemical Engineering, Unit of Environmental Science and
Technology, 9 Heroon Polytechniou Street, Zographou Campus, 157
73 Athens, Greece.
Email: konmoust@central.ntua.gr

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015

420 Waste Management & Research 33(5)
(EU MS). In particular, the main objectives of the aforemen-
tioned Directive are ‘the reduction of the amount of single-use
plastic carrier bags consumed per capita by 2015 in order to
limit the environmental damage and the solution of a wide and
common problem in a coordinated and coherent way’ (European
Commission, 2013a).
Nonetheless, issues were raised regarding the implementation
of an EU-wide reduction target for the plastic bag consumption
applying to all EU MS. The main difficulties were identified on
the various plastic bag consumption levels, the differences in
consumption habits and of course the effectiveness of the former
to the Directive measures applied (European Commission,
2013d) among the EU MS. Based on these difficulties, the obli-
gation for all EU MS to reduce the lightweight plastic bag con-
sumption was established by allowing each country to design and
follow its own national strategy regarding the transposition of the
Directive into their national law within 2 years after the imple-
mentation date of the Directive.
Despite the coordinated and coherent Directive established,
issues are now raised regarding the compliance of each EU MS
with this EU policy since there are several examples of countries
that have implemented various policy options and yielded mixed
results. More specifically, there are several EU MS that have
implemented policy options regarding the reduction of plastic
bag consumption and managed reduction (European
Commission, 2013d), but none of these existing measures is
coherent to the Directive’s objectives. Furthermore, the average
reduction percentage recorded in the seven best case studies of
the EU MS has reached almost 20% (European Commission,
2013d). Nevertheless, the most important issue raised is that
there is little evidence regarding the reasons of the effectiveness
of the measures taken, in order to establish a pattern for the com-
pliance of each EU MS with the Directive.
In the following sections, different combinations of policy
options regarding the reduction of plastic bag consumption, as
well as a mapping of the existing measures taken in the EU MS,
are provided. Based on the data available, an attempt for explain-
ing the difficulties of the implementation of the measures will be
presented.
‘Find the gap’
In the text following, specific cases of countries where measures
were taken regarding the reduction of the plastic bag consump-
tion, as well as a mapping of the existing measures in the EU MS,
are presented, highlighting certain drawbacks of the measures
according to the literature review conducted.
Some of the problems encountered in the existing measures
taken for the reduction of the plastic carrier bag consumption are
based on the fact that it is not possible to have one successful
policy option for all the countries (Hasson et al., 2007). More
specifically, the influence that a regulation may show can vary
across the different groups of persons and different areas (He,
2010), and as a result even more among different countries.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015
A perfect example describing the failure of following suit with
similar measures in two different countries is the case of Ireland
and Scotland. The success story of Ireland is based on the plastic
bag retail levies, which have resulted in a spectacular decrease of
the plastic bag use. The regulator, by implementing such a policy
option, aimed first at the reduction of littering on rural landscape
and second to enhance the sustainable consumer behaviour
(Convery et al., 2007). Two key issues that could be highlighted
in the case of Ireland are: (i) the strong evidence regarding the
reduction of plastic bag consumption owing to the charge; and
(ii) the enhancement of stakeholder and consumer acceptance for
the successful implementation of this kind of tax (House of
Commons Environment Audit Committee, 2014). However, it
should be noted that the results from cases where a complete
plastic bag ban was implemented have been less than clear
(Gupta, 2011). On the contrary, there is the Scottish case where a
bill was introduced based almost entirely on the successful Irish
model. Nevertheless, the bill was withdrawn maybe owing to
various social reasons (e.g. low public acceptance or preference
to paper bags) (AP EnvEcon, 2008). As a result, one may assume
that consumers’ response to the policy implemented is indeed an
important parameter to consider (Convery et al., 2007).
Apart from citizens’ attitude, retailers that are part of the soci-
ety may also play an important role in the successful implementa-
tion of a measure regarding the reduction of the plastic bag use.
More specifically, retailers and related recycling organisations
have claimed that the introduction of a levy or ban on plastic bags
does not constitute an adequate tool for the reduction of the envi-
ronmental impacts of plastic bags consumed. To this end, rele-
vant environmental improvements should also include voluntary
agreements between the government and industry, as well as rais-
ing awareness and education campaigns (PRO EUROPE, 2011).
Otherwise stated, industries support the idea that in order for the
consumer to change his/her habits, a better insight of the environ-
mental impacts associated to his/her lifestyle is also needed (PRO
EUROPE, 2011).
There are also cases, such as the plastic bag legislation in
South Africa, recording a significant reduction in the plastic bag
consumption, a trend that was gradually reversed slightly over
the years (Hasson et al., 2007). Another example is the case of
Delhi, where the competent authorities designed alternative strat-
egies for the reduction of the plastic bag use after the initial inef-
fective ban. Therefore, there are cases where further adjustments
may need to be adopted regarding the measures taken in the first
place (He, 2010). In particular for the case of Delhi, the
approaches were all targeted to the consumer, including measures
such as information spreading regarding the environmental
impacts from the use of plastic bags, a motivation system based
on money return in order to encourage people to stop using plas-
tic bags, as well as provision of alternative options for replacing
the use of plastic bags (Gupta, 2011). These examples highlight
the need for careful design before the implementation of the law,
as well as the importance of the combination of strategies for the
successful implementation of the legislation.
Kasidoni et al. 421
The variety of the implemented policy options, not only for
the different but also for the same cases, reveals a non-linear rela-
tionship between a pattern that appears and the introduction into
policy (Clapp and Swanston, 2009). Several not obvious factors
may affect this relationship, such as the material interests.
According to the study of Clapp and Swanston (2009), the plas-
tics industry (as part of the society) may also influence the policy
outcome regarding the use of plastic bags. Industry actors can
and often do play a key role in interpreting norms into policy at
the domestic level, which is consistent to the tensions raised
owing to the dual objective approach of the Packaging and
Packaging Waste Directive between internal markets and envi-
ronmental protection. Many industry representatives agreed that
the introduction of national requirements by EU MS aiming at
the reduction of the environmental impacts of plastic bags con-
sumed may cause compliance problems owing to complexity or
cost-related issues (European Commission-DG Environment,
2014). As a result, based on the main outcomes regarding the
industries’ assertions, there is room for further research regarding
the way that new environmental norms emerge and how these
norms are being interpreted into policy in the different jurisdic-
tions (Clapp and Swanston, 2009).
The aforementioned description of different measures taken
can also be observed among the different policy options imple-
mented in the EU MS. In order to prove the existing lack of a
pattern regarding the implemented policy options for the reduc-
tion of the use of the plastic bags among the EU MS, a simple
approach was adopted based on three main parameters related to
the measures taken. The parameters refer to the existing or
planned legislation, the voluntary initiatives, as well as the eco-
nomic measures adopted for the reduction of the plastic carrier
bags used in the EU MS. In addition, considering the effective-
ness of the measures taken for the reduction of the plastic carrier
bags consumed, it is valuable to record the impacts of the meas-
ures on the plastic bag consumption and littering rate (European
Commission DG Environment, 2012). The plastic bag consump-
tion as well as the littering rate are two aspects that can clearly
reflect the effectiveness of the measures taken.
Therefore, these three main parameters are then appraised
regarding the per-capita consumption of single-use plastic carrier
bags, as well as the littering rate of single-use plastic carrier bags.
It has to be noted that because of the difficulty to determine cer-
tain variables, such as the littering rate of the single-use plastic
carrier bags, the data presented are all gathered by the official
assessments conducted for the European Commission DG
Environment. More specifically, the various measures included in
the aforementioned assessments refer to the existing legislation,
voluntary initiatives and agreements, as well as any type of fee or
tax included in the national legislation of the EU MS that were
directly or indirectly aimed at the reduction of plastic bag use. The
information gathered is based on the overview of the Commission
Staff Working Document ‘Proposal for a Directive of the
European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive
94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste to reduce the
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015
consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags’ (European
Commission, 2013d). Furthermore, the per capita consumption of
single-use plastic carrier bags and littering rates in each EU MS
derived from studies conducted by the European Commission DG
Environment (European Commission DG Environment, 2011,
2012). Table 1 presents the per capita consumption of single-use
carrier bags and the plastic bag littering rates expressed as high-
density polyethylene (HDPE) and low-density polyethylene
(LDPE) littering for each EU MS. The values of the mentioned
parameters are grouped into categories in ascending order accord-
ing to plastic bags consumption and littering rate. It has to be
noted that since a quantified target has not been included in the
Directive yet, the selected categorisation can be considered solid
for the current theoretical approach used in this manuscript.
Based on Table 1 and the measures implemented regarding the
reduction of plastic bag consumption in each EU MS, some inter-
esting observations can be drawn as discussed in more detail here.
EU MS that have taken legislative
measures for the reduction of the plastic
carrier bags used
Several EU MS, such as Spain, Italy, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia,
France, Ireland, Latvia, Malta, Romania and the United Kingdom,
have had voluntary agreements with retailers or have adopted a law
banning. Furthermore, some EU MS, such as the Czech Republic and
Sweden, consider and treat plastic carrier bags as packaging. Among
the EU MS, Ireland and Italy are believed to have taken the most
drastic measures for the reduction of the use of plastic carrier bags.
EU MS with existing legislation regarding the reduction of the
use of plastic carrier bags have shown lower per capita consump-
tion of single-use plastic carrier bags (e.g. Belgium, Denmark,
France, Ireland and the Netherlands) than the rest of the EU MS
(Figure 1). Nevertheless, Latvia is still considered as a country
with high per capita consumption of single-use plastic carrier
bags, perhaps owing to the first law introduced. (In Latvia, the law
regarding the use of plastic carrier bags was amended in order to
prevent the use of plastic carrier bags without handles (European
Commission, 2013d). The value regarding the per capita con-
sumption of single-use plastic carrier bags for the Czech Republic
is at the boundary; therefore it is presented in the group of EU MS
with relatively high per capita plastic bag consumption.
It has to be noted that EU MS that have imposed legislative
measures achieved lower littering rates of single-use bags (HDPE
and LDPE) than other EU MS (Latvia was once more an excep-
tion) (Figure 2).
EU MS with voluntary initiatives aiming
to reduce lightweight plastic carrier bag
consumption
Most EU MS have had voluntary initiatives or agreements with
retailers in order to gradually phase-out the use of plastic carrier
bags. However, there are several countries without voluntary ini-
tiatives, such as Cyprus, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Bulgaria, the
422 Waste Management & Research 33(5)

Table 1.  Annual per capita consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags (SUPCB) and annual percentage of single-use HDPE
and LDPE bags littered for each EU MS.

Member state Per capita Member state % of HDPE Member state % of LDPE
consumption SUPCB littered SUPCB littered
of SUPCB
Denmark 4 Denmark 0.5% Denmark 0.2%
Finland 4 Finland 0.5% Finland 0.2%
Ireland 18 Ireland 0.5% Ireland 0.2%
Luxembourg 18 Netherlands 0.5% Netherlands 0.2%
Austria 45 Sweden 0.5% Sweden 0.2%
Germany 64 United Kingdom 0.5% United Kingdom 0.2%
Netherlands 71 Austria 2.0% Austria 0.8%
France 79 Belgium 2.0% Belgium 0.8%
Belgium 97 France 2.0% France 0.8%
Sweden 100 Germany 2.0% Germany 0.8%
Malta 107 Luxembourg 2.0% Luxembourg 0.8%
Spain 120 Portugal 2.0% Portugal 0.8%
Cyprus 125 Spain 2.0% Spain 0.8%
United Kingdom 158 Bulgaria 10.0% Bulgaria 4.0%
Italy 181 Cyprus 10.0% Cyprus 4.0%
Greece 242 Czech Republic 10.0% Czech Republic 4.0%
Bulgaria 246 Estonia 10.0% Estonia 4.0%
Romania 252 Greece 10.0% Greece 4.0%
Czech Republic 297 Hungary 10.0% Hungary 4.0%
Estonia 466 Italy 10.0% Italy 4.0%
Hungary 466 Latvia 10.0% Latvia 4.0%
Latvia 466 Lithuania 10.0% Lithuania 4.0%
Lithuania 466 Malta 10.0% Malta 4.0%
Poland 466 Poland 10.0% Poland 4.0%
Portugal 466 Romania 10.0% Romania 4.0%
Slovakia 466 Slovakia 10.0% Slovakia 4.0%
Slovenia 466 Slovenia 10.0% Slovenia 4.0%

Source: European Commission DG Environment (2011) and European Commission DG Environment (2012).
The different colours used in Table 1 represent the classification of the figures into three main categories according to the existing range of values.
HDPE: high-density polyethylene; LDPE: low-density polyethylene; SUPCB: single-use plastic carrier bags.

Czech Republic, Denmark, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands,
Romania and Slovenia. Some of them have included a law ban-
ning in their national legislation (e.g. Ireland), while some others
do not have a relevant legal framework in place.
Voluntary initiatives seem to address the issue of plastic bags
effectively in certain EU MS. More specifically, Austria, Germany,
Finland, Belgium and France have reached lower per capita con-
sumption rates of single-use plastic carrier bags (Figure 3), and at
the same time lower littering rates of single-use HDPE and LDPE
bags than other EU MS with no voluntary initiatives (Figure 4).
On the other hand, in Hungary, Lithuania, Slovakia and Latvia,
plastic carrier bag consumption and littering rates are still high,
despite the application of voluntary initiatives.
EU MS that have introduced a fee/tax for
the reduction of the plastic carrier bags
used
Certain EU MS have already included a fee for the reduction of
plastic bags consumption. The fee either applies to the use of
plastic bags directly and most often rests with the customers (e.g.
Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, Latvia,
Malta and Romania), or it is priced indirectly through the dis-
posal charge for plastic packaging waste (e.g. Belgium, Sweden,
Estonia, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands).
EU MS under this category that have reached low per capita
consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags are Belgium,
Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. On the con-
trary, there are certain EU MS, such as the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Latvia and Slovenia, which are still considered coun-
tries of relatively high per capita consumption of single-use
plastic carrier bags, despite the introduction of economic
measures (Figure 5).
EU MS that have accomplished reducing their littering rates
of single-use HDPE/LDPE bags through economic policy meas-
ures are Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, the Netherlands,
Sweden and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, there are EU MS
(e.g. Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovenia) that have introduced
a tax on single-use plastic carrier bags, but still display high lit-
tering rates compared with other EU MS (Figure 6).

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015

Kasidoni et al. 423

Figure 1.  EU MS with national legislation regarding the reduction of plastic carrier bags used and per capita consumption of
single-use plastic carrier bags. p.b.: plastic bags.

Figure 2.  EU MS with national legislation regarding the reduction of plastic carrier bags used and littering rates of single-use
plastic carrier bags.

Results and discussion
Certain EU MS (e.g. Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg,
Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Belgium) have
lower per capita consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags
than the rest of the EU MS. In addition, certain EU MS, with
lower per capita consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags
than the rest of EU MS, have also reached some of the lowest
plastic bag littering rates. Typical examples of low consump-
tion and littering rates are Denmark and Finland, having a per
capita plastic bag consumption equal to four, and a littering rate
equal to 0.5 and 0.2% for HDPE and LDPE plastic bags, respec-
tively (Table 1). In Denmark, the implemented policy includes
legislative as well as economic measures, while in Finland only
voluntary initiatives have been introduced. This indicates that
there is no specific pattern regarding the required measures for the
limitation of the plastic bags environmental impact. This is also
evident by the fact that only a limited number of EU MS that
introduced legislative provisions have actually achieved signifi-
cant limitation of plastic carrier bag consumption (i.e. Belgium,
Denmark, Ireland and France).
It is also noteworthy that almost all countries that have
adopted some kind of legislation have reached lower littering
rates of HDPE and LDPE bags than the rest EU MS, except for
Italy, Malta, Romania and Latvia. In addition, voluntary initia-
tives seem to be the first step for many EU MS towards the

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015

424 Waste Management & Research 33(5)

Figure 3.  EU MS with voluntary initiatives regarding the reduction of plastic carrier bags used and per capita consumption of
single-use plastic carrier bags. p.b.: plastic bags.

Figure 4.  EU MS with voluntary initiatives regarding the reduction of plastic carrier bags used and littering rates of single-use
plastic carrier bags.

reduction of plastic carrier bags use. This can be explained by the
number of EU MS applying such measures considering the
implementation easiness compared with legal and economic pol-
icy measures. Nevertheless, about half of EU MS with low per
capita consumption of plastic carrier bags present a combination
of voluntary and legislative measures.
It should be mentioned that most of the EU MS with high
per capita consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags are
those that have introduced voluntary initiatives. However, EU
MS with low plastic bags use also present high rates of plastic
packaging recycling (except Finland, Denmark and France
which have some of the lowest rates) and recovery (except
Finland).
To sum up, in spite of the fact that the comparison between
the cases of existing legislation and those with voluntary initia-
tives is difficult – mainly owing to the extent of the implementa-
tion of the measure – one may assume that voluntary initiatives
have contributed the least to the plastic bag littering rates
reduction.
As far as the economic measures are concerned, most of the
time they are combined with cases where there is also some kind
of legislation established. EU MS that have adopted economic
measures and have reached low per capita consumption of single-
use plastic carrier bags are about the same in number of those with
high per capita consumption of single-use plastic carrier bags.
Nevertheless, the economic measures have affected positively the

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015

Kasidoni et al. 425

Figure 5.  EU MS with economic measures regarding the reduction of plastic carrier bags used and per capita consumption of
single-use plastic carrier bags. p.b.: plastic bags.

Figure 6.  EU MS with economic measures regarding the reduction of plastic carrier bags used and littering rates of single-use
plastic carrier bags.

littering rates of single-use plastic carrier bags of fewer EU MS
than those that have implemented a different policy option.
This simple approach proves that none of the measures are
coherent to the objectives of the Directive, and apparently the
reduction rates of plastic bag consumption are still low. Based on
the above, certain observations may be made and referred to the
lack of a single solution applied to all the cases for the reduction
of plastic carrier bag consumption. Furthermore, one may assume
that the variety of the measures taken for the reduction of the use
of plastic carrier bags is related to stakeholder and citizen accept-
ance. The uncertainties involved between the stakeholder/citizen
acceptance and the successful policy option implementation may
be an important parameter to assess in an ex-ante study, so as to
design and implement an effective policy option for the limita-
tion of the plastic bags environmental impact. Whatsoever, the
main objective of the Directive (i.e. the reduction of the plastic
bag consumption) is strongly related to the use of plastic bags by
the consumers (e.g. citizens, retailers, industries, etc.) and there-
fore the change of consumers’ behaviour towards the use of plas-
tic bags.
As a result, one may assume that since the change of behav-
iour is crucial regarding the effectiveness of the policy option
selected by each EU MS for compliance to the Directive, the
examination of the habit discontinuity (Verplanken et al., 2008)
could be the key parameter for assessing. The change in the
habitual character of the use of lightweight plastic carrier bags by

Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015

426 Waste Management & Research 33(5)
the consumers, as well as some other related attitudinal and
behavioural responses (Poortinga et al., 2013) – which are not
commonly understood – can reveal the implications of the prob-
lem. To this end, the motives needed for reaching the threshold to
overcome the obstacles between attitudes and behaviour
(Festinger, 1957; Poortinga et al., 2013), the behaviour and atti-
tude change owing to the successful policy targeting behaviour
change of a certain group (as attitudes change because of the
observation of their own behaviour) (Bem, 1967), the attitude
change after evaluating the benefits over the drawbacks of a pol-
icy (Ölander and Thøgersen, 1995), the external contingencies
affecting behaviour change (Deci and Ryan, 1985) as well as the
far from clear (Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010) influence of the
behaviour that is targeted in order to change other behaviours
related (Ludwig, 2002; Ludwig and Geller, 1997; Poortinga et
al., 2013; Thøgersen, 2004; Thogersen and Crompton, 2009) are
some of the cases that should be considered in an ex-ante assess-
ment for the design of a policy option regarding the reduction of
plastic bag consumption.
In addition, the difficulty to establish a causal relationship
based on the traditionally correlational evidence (Barr et al.,
2005; Poortinga et al., 2012, 2013; Thøgersen and Noblet, 2012;
Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010) regarding the environment and
human behaviour reveals the need for further work, which can
only be established through experimental research (Poortinga et
al., 2013). Not to mention that this difficulty is further enhanced
owing to the unclear opinions regarding the existence of interre-
lated propensities in an environment-friendly way in the various
situations (Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003; Whitmarsh and
O’Neill, 2010). Nonetheless, it has been proved that the preserva-
tion of the environmental quality is strongly related to human
behaviour patterns (Steg and Vlek, 2009). As a result, an idea
regarding the need for changing human behaviour regarding sev-
eral everyday activities has been growing, since many of these
activities have been overtaken by consumption growth (Midden
et al., 2007; Steg and Vlek, 2009).
In other words, there is a need for revealing the determinants
of consumer behaviour each time interventions for changing
consumer activities and lifestyles take place (Thøgersen and
Ölander, 2003). Especially for the case of consumer behaviour,
which applies to the case of the reduction of the plastic bag con-
sumption, the establishment of a pattern to follow for each case
is hard as has been justified in related studies (Steg and Vlek,
2009). Most research has shed light on the causes of specific
sectors for consumer behaviour (Gray, 1985; Ölander and
Thøgersen, 1995; Thøgersen, 1995; Thøgersen and Ölander,
2003), the motivations and habits (Steg and Vlek, 2009), as well
as the link to identity (Cook et al., 2002; Grewal et al., 2000;
Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010).
Nevertheless, since it has been proved that one of the major
parameters for succeeding in changing behaviour is the identifi-
cation of the cause of these behaviours (Geller, 2002; Steg and
Vlek, 2009), it is valuable to conduct ex-ante studies, such as
evaluations of effectiveness or impact assessments. In addition, it
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015
has to be noted that ex-post environmental studies have revealed
the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration among the sev-
eral scientific sectors (Geller, 1995; Schoot Uiterkamp and Vlek,
2007; Steg and Vlek, 2009) for achieving the best possible result
towards the targeted change of behaviour associated with signifi-
cant environmental problems (Lorenzoni et al., 2007; McKenzie-
Mohr and Smith, 1999; Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010).
The environment–human behaviour correlation is as impor-
tant to researchers as to policy-makers (Steg and Vlek, 2009).
There is great interest to identify cost-effective and acceptable-
by-the public ways to change certain everyday choices that have
been proved to be related to environmental problems (Cialdini,
2006; Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
2006; Lucas et al., 2008; Whitmarsh and O’Neill, 2010).
However, it is not quite clear which are the most suitable mecha-
nisms, as well as the all-powerful and constant policy options in
order to affect environmental behaviour of consumers, the com-
petent public and/or the private sector bodies (Lucas et al., 2008).
Therefore, it is suggested that the experimental research designs,
as well as the identification of the reasons of effectiveness of the
intervention programmes, should be evaluated before the policy
implementation. Despite the cost and time-consuming character
of such studies, the results retrieved are rather valuable for
designing a successful policy option. As a result, the introduction
of such studies before the law implementation can contribute
effectively to a holistic approach in combination with the rest of
the relevant studies, so as to build the necessary consensus among
political parties-policy makers and the public.
Conclusions
Stimulus for writing this manuscript was the implementation of
the Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste to
reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags. Based
on the literature review conducted regarding the various inter-
vention options designed and implemented for the reduction of
the plastic bag consumption, the challenges for the transposition
of the Directive into the EU MS’ national legislation were
highlighted.
The examination of the existing policy instruments (i.e. legis-
lative, voluntary and economic measures) applied in EU MS for
the limitation of the environmental impact of plastic bags has
indicated that there is no single solution that can be used in all
countries. In addition, it has been shown that there is not one
specific solution addressing both the reduction of plastic bag
consumption and plastic bags littering.
Based on the aforementioned theoretical analysis, a holistic
approach for designing the compliance of a national strategy with
an EU-wide prevention target would be effective if various
parameters were included covering factors from interdisciplinary
sectors. Surveys that would offer added value during the design-
ing phase of an intervention should include experimental research
results to pre-selected groups (i.e. consumers and stakeholders)
that are not exposed to the forthcoming intervention in design.
Kasidoni et al. 427
Additional information is also required to clarify how actors
adapt over time to a policy option, in combination with the tradi-
tional evaluations and assessments that estimate environmental,
economic and certain social impacts of the problem targeted by
the selected policy option.
The transposition of the Directive 94/62/EC to reduce the con-
sumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags into the national leg-
islation of each EU MS indicated the lack of the evaluation of
certain parameters (which may reveal even more parameters
when relevant studies with actual evidence are conducted), but
also highlighted a significant scientific issue for further research
regarding the attitudinal and behavioural responses, as well as the
influence of stakeholders to the various environmental policy
options.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in
the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
References
AP EnvEcon (2008) Regulatory impact analysis of proposed legislation to
increase levies on plastic shopping bags and certain waste facilities.
Ayalon O, Goldrath T, Rosenthal G and Grossman M (2009) Reduction
of plastic carrier bag use: An analysis of alternatives in Israel. Waste
Management 29: 2025–2032.
Barr S, Gilg AW and Ford N (2005) The household energy gap: Examining
the divide between habitual-and purchase-related conservation behav-
iours. Energy Policy 33: 1425–1444.
Bem D (1967) Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of cognitive dis-
sonance phenomena. Psychological Review 74: 183–200.
Cialdini RB (2006) Influence: Psychology of Persuasion. Collins business
essentials edition. New York: HarperCollins.
Clapp J and Swanston L (2009) Doing away with plastic shopping bags:
International patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation.
Environmental Politics 18: 315–332.
Clean Up Australia (2007) Plastic bags – World report. Available at http://
www.cleanup.org.au/PDF/au/cua-world-update-on-plastic-bags-as-
at-120207.pdf (accessed 10 September 2014).
Convery F, McDonnel S and Ferreira S (2007) The most popular tax in
Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environment and
Resource Economics 38: 1–11.
Cook AJ, Kerr GN and Moore K (2002) Attitudes and intentions towards
purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology 23: 557–572.
Deci EL and Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in
Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006) Power
devolved is energy released, speech by the Rt Hon David Miliband MP
at the Local Government Association annual conference, Bournemouth,
4 July 2006.
Derraik JGB (2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic
debris: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 842–852.
European Commission (2013a) Commission staff working document execu-
tive summary of the impact assessment accompanying the document
proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council
amending Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste to
reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags.
European Commission (2013b) Impact assessment for a proposal for a
Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending
Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste to reduce the con-
sumption of lightweight plastic carrier bags.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015
European Commission (2013c) Press release. Environment: Commission
proposes to reduce the use of plastic bags.
European Commission (2013d) Proposal for a Directive of the European
Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 94/62/EC on packag-
ing and packaging waste to reduce the consumption of lightweight plastic
carrier bags COM(2013)761final, Brussels.
European Commission DG Environment (2011) Assessment of impacts
of options to reduce the use of single-use plastic carrier bags. Final
Report.
European Commission DG Environment (2012) Assistance to the commis-
sion to complement an assessment of the socio-economic costs and ben-
efits of options to reduce the use of single-use plastic carrier bags in the
EU. Final Report for the European Commission DG Environment under
Framework Contract No ENV.C.2/FRA/2011/0020.
European Commission-DG Environment (2014) Ex-post evaluation of cer-
tain waste stream Directives Final report.
Festinger L (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Palo Alto: Stanford
University Press.
Geller ES (1995) Actively caring for the environment: an integration of
behaviourism and humanism. Environment and Behaviour 27: 184–195.
Geller ES (2002) The challenge of increasing proenvironmental behaviour.
In: Bechtel RB and Churchman A (eds) Handbook of Environmental
Psychology. New York: Wiley, 525–540.
Gray DB (1985) Ecological Beliefs and Behaviours: Assessment and Change.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Grewal R, Mehta R and Kardes FR (2000) The role of the social-identity
function of attitudes in consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership.
Journal of Economic Psychology 21: 233–252.
Gupta K (2011) Is a ban the best way to reduce plastic bag use? A case study
from Delhi Sandee Economics & the Environment Policy Brief 60–11.
Hasson R, Leiman A and Visser M (2007) The economics of plastic bag
legislation in South Africa. South African Journal of Economics 75:
66–83.
He H (2010) The Effects of and Environmental Policy on Consumers: Lessons
from the Chinese Plastic Ban Regulation. University of Gothenburg.
House of Commons Environment Audit Committee (2014) Plastic bags.
Eleventh Report of Session 2013–14 Report, together with formal min-
utes relating to the report.
Laist DW (1997) Impacts of marine debris: Entanglement of marine life in
marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with entangle-
ment and ingestion records. In: Coe JM and Rogers DB (eds) Marine
Debris. Sources, Impacts, Solutions. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.,
99–140.
Legislative Council Panel on Environmental Affairs (2007) A proposal on an
environmental levy on plastic shopping bags. Available at: http://www.
legco.gov.hk./yr06–07/english/panels/ea/papers/ea0528cb1–1666–17-e.
pdf (accessed 12 September 2014).
Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S and Whitmarsh L (2007) Barriers perceived
to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy
implications. Global Environmental Change 17: 445–459.
Lucas K, Brooks M, Darnton A and Jones JE (2008) Promoting pro-
environmental behaviour: existing evidence and policy implications.
Environmental Science & Policy 11: 456–466.
Ludwig TD (2002) On the necessity of structure in an arbitrary world: Using
concurrent schedules of reinforcement to describe response generaliza-
tion. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 21: 13–38.
Ludwig TD and Geller ES (1997) Assigned versus participative goal setting
and response generalization: Managing injury control among professional
pizza deliverers. Journal of Applied Psychology 82: 253–261.
McKenzie-Mohr D and Smith W (1999). Fostering sustainable behaviour:
An introduction to community-based social marketing. Gabriola Island,
B.C., Canada: New Society Publishers.
Midden C, Kaiser F and McCalley T (2007) Technology’s four roles in
understanding individuals’ conservation of natural resources. Journal of
Social Issues 63: 155–174.
O’Brine T and Thompson RC (2010) Degradation of plastic carrier bags in
the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 2279–2283
Ocean Conservancy (2009) A rising tide of ocean debris. Available at: http://
act.oceanconservancy.org/pdf/A_Rising_Tide_full_lowres.pdf (accessed
12 September 2014).
428 Waste Management & Research 33(5)
Official Journal of the European Communities L 365/10 of 31/12/94
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December
1994 on packaging and packaging waste.
Ölander F and Thøgersen J (1995) Understanding of consumer behaviour as
a prerequisite for environmental protection. Journal of Consumer Policy
18: 317–357.
Poortinga W, Spence A, Demski C and Pidgeon NF (2012) Individual-
motivational factors in the acceptability of demand-side and supply-side
measures to reduce carbon emissions. Energy Policy 48: 812–819.
Poortinga W, Whitmarsh L and Suffolk C (2013) The introduction of a
single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: Attitude change and behavioural
spillover effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology 36: 240–247.
PRO EUROPE (2011) Packaging recovery organisation Europe’s position on
plastic carrier bags. Available at: http://www.pro-e.org/Position-papers.
html
Rios L, Moore C and Jones P (2007) Persistent organic pollutants carried by
synthetic polymers in the ocean environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin
54: 1230–1237.
Schoot Uiterkamp A and Vlek C (2007) Practice and outcomes of multidisci-
plinary research for environmental sustainability. Journal of Social Issues
63: 175–197.
Steg L and Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An
integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 29: 309–317.
Downloaded from wmr.sagepub.com by guest on September 11, 2015
Thøgersen J (1995) ForbrugeradfćrdsundersØgelser med miljØmćssigtsigte.
Erfaringer og perspektiver. Arbejdsrapport 1, The Danish Environmental
Protection Agency, Copenhagen.
Thøgersen J (2004) A cognitive dissonance interpretation of consistencies
and inconsistencies in environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 24: 93–103.
Thøgersen J and Crompton T (2009) Simple and painless? The limitations
of spillover in environmental campaigning. Journal of Consumer Policy
32: 141–163.
Thøgersen J and Ölander F (2003) Spillover of environment-friendly con-
sumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23: 225–236.
Thøgersen J and Noblet C (2012) Does green consumerism increase the
acceptance of wind power? Energy Policy 51: 854–862.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2006) Action urged to
avoid deep trouble in the deep seas. Available at: http://www.unep.org/
Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=480&ArticleID=530
0&l=en (accessed 12 September 2014).
Verplanken B, Walker I, Davis A and Jurasek M (2008) Context change and
travel mode choice: Combining the habit discontinuity and self-activation
hypotheses. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28: 121–127.
Whitmarsh L and O’Neill (2010) Green identity, green living? The role of
pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse
pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology 30:
305–314.