Debate on the social responsibility of organisations is anchored in two separate poles – economics, which is concerned with corporations, and moral philosophy, which is concerned with social responsibilities. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) combines both into a single discipline (Godfrey and Hatch, 2007). It is now generally accepted that incremental pollution of the natural environment and the use of plastics as a packaging material are linked. A ‘garbage patch’ of an estimated 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic covers 1.6 million square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean. In 1950, a global human population of 2.5 billion consumed 1.5 million tonnes of plastic, which increased to over 320 million tonnes in 2016. It is estimated this figure will double by 2034 (Myers et al., 2020). In the UK, retailers placed 948 thousand tonnes of plastic grocery packaging on the market in 2017 (WRAP, 2018). Despite UK grocery packaging accounting for just 0.3% of global plastics production, British consumers now expect grocers to be active in reversing the impacts of its loss to the global ecosphere.
Whereas economic progress was historically understood to juxtapose with social responsibility (Kotler, 2015), empirical research demonstrates a convergence of the two, suggesting that CSR is now mainstream business practice (Godfrey and Hatch, 2007; Hooley et al., 2017; Wieland, 2017). Organisations are obliged to conduct business in a socially and environmentally responsible way, meeting business needs of the present without restricting the ability of future generations to meet their respective needs (Baumgartner and Rauter, 2017). Furthermore, research has shown a positive link between CSR activity and sales revenue growth in UK grocery retail (Nyame-Asiamah and Ghulam, 2020), suggesting CSR activity can be both commercially and environmentally sustainable.
Plastic packaging provides retailers with a system to protect, preserve and promote their products in a way that keeps them fresher for longer and avoids food waste. In order that we may continue to enjoy the health and lifestyle benefits of packaging systems, it is necessary to develop sustainable solutions which allow customers to consume food safely and conveniently. At the same time, there is also a pressing need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to stem the loss of plastic waste to the environment.
The traditional approach to tackling pollution focussed on addressing the problem after its creation, by directing attention and resources towards regulatory compliance (Cheremisinoff and Ferrante, 1989). This approach is shifting towards one of ‘turning the tide’ on plastic waste, by tackling the root cause rather than the symptoms thereof (European Commission, 2018). Since the Industrial Revolution, Western economies have entrenched a linear commercial philosophy of take, make, and dispose. In view of the impending waste crisis, this archetype is undergoing rejection in favour of a circular economy which decouples economic growth from the consumption of virgin resources. This green revolution requires technological disruption to replace incumbent unidirectional extractivist business models with alternatives characterised by longevity, renewability, reuse, and repair (Brevini and Murdock, 2017; Esposito et al., 2018), yet this approach is incompatible with incumbent delivery systems of convenience grocery.
Industry often heralds recycling as the solution to the plastics problem. The UK Plastics Pact, a voluntary industry scheme, aims to improve the recyclability of plastics to 100% by 2025 and to ensure that at least 70% of plastic packaging is effectively recycled (WRAP, 2020). University of Manchester research suggests significant improvements in recycling rates would reduce plastic leakage into the environment and create best-practice examples for other systems (Burgess et al., 2020). However, at 67% for bottles, 29% for pots, tubs, and trays, and just 4% for films, current recycling rates for plastic packaging are undeniably low (Morgan and McBeth, 2020). Powerful stakeholders, both governmental and non-governmental, assert that it will not be possible to recycle our way out of this problem (Darlington, 2021). Alternatives to recycling include the development of biobased plastics (Maddela, 2021) and refillable packaging solutions which reduce overall impact through a high number of reuse cycles (Peake et al., 2019).
UK food retailers’ reported knowledge of their customers’ attitudes to sustainability issues have evolved in recent decades. Research has shown that consumer sovereignty remains a key driver of business activity in this regard. Rather than simply making existing products more environmentally sustainable at the expense of consumer convenience, the term sustainable has paradoxically come to describe a new category of single use products aimed at increasing consumption (Ehgartner, 2018). This ‘greentailing’ is one of several revolutions the retail industry has undergone in the 21st century. It encourages the retailer to think, act, sell and convey ‘green’ (Stern and Ander, 2008). Green marketing is used by firms to attempt to integrate environmental sustainability into the marketing mix so that customer needs and organisational objectives can be realised in ways that are compatible with environmental ecosystems (Dangelico and Vocalelli, 2017). It is unlikely that encouraging customers to purchase more products due to their perceived sustainability advantages will reduce the overall impact of consumption, yet it seems axiomatic that CSR offers a valuable source of brand legitimacy, with 75% of buyers preferring environmentally friendly products (Overman, 2014). This has manifested in on-pack claims such as ‘100% recyclable’, ‘now less packaging’ and ‘plastic free’ (Tesco, 2021). Businesses use consumer communications about the political, social, and institutional impacts of business activity in this way as tools of organisational legitimisation (Lindblom, 1994; Brown and Deegan, 1998; Deegan, 2011).
Porter’s (1998) theory of the three generic strategies is revered in terms almost biblical by Marketing professionals. It advocated three strategic approaches to business: cost leadership, differentiation, and focus, yet organisational isomorphism is driving a convergence of strategy through the packaging policies of retailers, calling Porter’s theory into question. Rather than differentiating through their packaging materials (e.g. using non-NIR detectable black pigments for premium products) or using the lowest cost yet least sustainable option (e.g. PVC), supermarkets are adopting similar solutions that are more compatible with a circular economy for plastics. These isomorphic pressures may be coercive, as when the NGO Greenpeace ranks retailers’ approach to plastics in a league table; they may be mimetic, such as when retailers attempt to develop superior positions of legitimacy to their competitors; or they may be normative, as is evident when societal norms affect the way managers themselves perceive the use of plastics within the organisation (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). Whether isomorphism occurs at the organisational, competitive, or individual level, it is clearly driving retailers to move towards a more closely unified industry position on sustainable packaging material choices. The ’triple bottom line’ approach, addressing the three ‘Ps’ of green marketing (Profits, People, and Planet), is increasingly used to portray company performance beyond economic progress, considering social justice and environmental quality alongside economic profit (Cronin et al., 2011). Sustainability is therefore a key element in a company’s value proposition when every customer has the democratic power to be a corporate stakeholder (Ottman, 2017).
コメント