McDonald’s approach to refill and reuse and its new report on the concept has left us both parched and puzzled. By David Burrows.
It is 2023. So we should be able to walk into a high street restaurant or hot beverage chain and ask for our reusable bottle to be refilled, shouldn’t we? Don’t bet on it. Even in a McDonald’s. The Package recently left a Glasgow outlet still parched and with our reusable bottle empty.
The fast food behemoth has been confusing us with its approach to reuse in more ways than one. In France, where legislation has forced foodservice companies to offer reusable packaging for those sitting in to scoff burgers and slurp coke, the company is complaining about light-fingered customers. “The item proving the hit with McDonald’s customers in France […] is not a new burger or chicken wrap, but a bright red, rubber container in which French fries are served,” reports the FT in a piece headlined ‘Macron versus McDonald’s: how France ditched disposable packaging’. Burger King had similar issues here in the UK in the early stages of a trial (it’s now also running a deposit return for reusable cups in Germany).
Branding is crucial for these companies but surely the best way to prevent this pilfering is through standardisation of packaging? The European Commission has suggested some degree of standardisation will be needed to meet its proposed targets on reusable packaging. Writing in Packaging Europe recently, James Harmer from Cambridge Design Partnership, said to watch out for what he calls “uber standardisation”. This “nascent trend is towards reusable packaging formats that are largely devoid of brand differentiation but can serve multiple businesses within a category ecosystem”.
Has he been reading Footprint’s 2023 packaging report (which identifies this opportunity, though admittedly using far less sexy and snappy a phrase as ‘uber standardisation’)? Consider the possibility of Costa, Caffè Nero, Starbucks, McDonald’s, Greggs and Burger King all using one coffee cup that can be used interchangeably between shops. Logistics are simplified, systems are scaled, costs come down and consumers are less confused (and less likely to keep the containers). The idea may make marketers sick to the stomach but McDonald’s recently received high praise for an advert that had no identifiable branding; there were no shots of its food or its restaurants. (Fast) food for thought.
The EU wants to follow France’s lead but proposals to accelerate adoption of reusable packaging are being called out as “dumb” by some of the industry execs the FT spoke to. The paper cited a study by the European Paper Packaging Alliance (EPPA) that argues (unconvincingly according to experts we spoke to) how disposable paper products such as laminated coffee cups and sandwich wrappers are more environmentally friendly than reusable equivalents.
Bullets or bollocks?
McDonald’s has seemingly adopted the EPPA’s dubious approach to scientific study with its ‘No silver bullet’ report. The research (and wider campaign) is arguing that “only a mix of packaging solutions will provide a sustainable future” and yet all the messaging (including a short video aimed at consumers) attacks reuse as environmentally damaging, costly, inconvenient and unsafe.
“[…] history itself is littered with examples of the unintended consequences of well-meaning policies and laws,” wrote McDonald’s EVP and global chief impact officer Jon Banner for Politico, without offering any examples, before laying into the EU’s current packaging and packaging waste proposal as “one such regulation”. He said: “By focusing solely on reusable packaging, we at McDonald’s and many of our partners and competitors in the informal dining out sector believe that [the regulation] will actually be counterproductive to the overall goals of the Green Deal.” The regulation doesn’t focus solely on reuse but it certainly attempts to give the struggling systems (see The Package November 2022) a kick up the backside.
Banner hopes the report commissioned and launched with Kearney, a consultancy, “will stimulate the policy debate about the mix of solutions needed”. The Package emailed Kearney twice (no response) and asked McDonald’s too for the data behind some of the estimates made in the report, which include a graphic showing the mandatory reuse targets in the EU’s packaging directive proposals would result in 260% more greenhouse gas emissions (page 25, figure 6).
We are sure it’s all above board so why not show the homework? Instead came a generic response from the McDonald’s press office which said the chain “supports legislation that promotes recycling and enhances existing infrastructure”. It doesn’t seem to support reuse because there isn’t enough evidence to “prove [its] acceptance by customers, environmental impacts and effectiveness in practice”.
Enough is enough
Much of the success of reuse schemes rests on return rates for reusable packaging so if people are pinching them the benefits slide. Banner reckons a cup needs to be returned 50 to 100 times to make it viable, environmentally-speaking. Expect more debate over such numbers. As Mike Newman, CEO at Returnity Innovations, wrote recently on LinkedIn, the best way to understand if a reuse model is proving itself and will ultimately scale is to ask “How often is the packaging being reused?”
He continued: “Put simply, if you get the packaging back ‘enough’, you have a chance to cross the economic, environmental and operational threshold necessary for the initiative to truly scale. So… what is enough? […] we identify and implement programs that can hit a 95% or greater return rate, which translates into the packaging being used for 20 cycles. Get below 90% (10 use cycles) and we’ve seen that the initiative simply can’t sustain or scale.” He also pointed out that timeframes are crucial. “New initiatives won’t be perfect out of the gate, and we need to experiment. If a program isn’t at the reuse level it needs to be viable today, when do they expect it to get there, and how?”
Uber Eats is the latest foodservice brand to launch a reusable packaging trial with supply chain company Again and restaurants in central London. Various incentives will be tested throughout the six months to measure what motivates customers to engage with reusables and what motivates them to return the packaging.
Understanding what people are willing to reuse, how and why was also the subject of research by the University of Sheffield published in the Journal of Cleaner Production. The study found people were relatively unwilling to reuse containers that showed signs of previous use. However, there were “substantial variations” in the point at which people deemed a product or container unacceptable for reuse and willingness depended on contextual factors, such as whether participants are presented with a clean or dirty container first, the role or perspective of the individual (e.g. whether they are a consumer eating from the bowl, or a member of staff serving food in the bowl) and individual differences, such as people’s sensitivity to food-related disgust.
This research, piloting and evidence is more critical than ever now regulations are starting to mandate reusable packaging. And indeed for campaigners looking to fend off expensive campaigns run by the single-use packaging supporters. Zero Waste Europe has launched a ‘get back’ campaign to ensure the reusable packaging policies are pushed forward. “Just like you cannot run trains on roads, you cannot run reuse in a system designed for single-use,” the group says.
Campaigners are preparing for a fight on reuse. Jean-Pierre Schweitzer from EEB, a network of environmental citizens’ organisations in Europe, told me following McDonald’s ‘No silver bullet’ report publication that it is “outrageous to make so much noise about a study while only publishing the results without any transparency on the analysis. They presented the results in the parliament and didn’t invite a single NGO.”
Chemistry lessons
The report also neglects to mention chemicals used in food wrappers, he adds. On the topic of chemicals, it’s worth noting the Food Packaging Forum’s recent update, which included research by European consumer organisation BEUC showing that most consumers believe that the safety and use information provided on food packaging is either not understandable or insufficient. “While consumers are generally aware that some packaging or containers can release chemicals into food, the survey results suggest they may not be receiving the information they need – such as directions for safe and appropriate use, BEUC said. According to the report, “an overhaul of EU food packaging laws is urgent.” It’s a topic we will inevitably return to.
And from chemicals to chemical recycling. The UK government has said that it will consult later this year on “allowing a mass balance approach for calculating the proportion of recycled content in chemically recycled plastics, for the purposes of the plastic packaging tax”. In March, Circular Online reported how the tax was “on course to beat its first year target” by some £30m. An FOI request from packaging firm Duo showed £266m could be raised by the tax. Exceeding the estimate of course means that more virgin plastic was used than expected.
There are certainly issues with supply and demand for recycled plastics, which are currently pricier than virgin ones. PepsiCo recently admitted that it is “struggling to [get] enough rPET” to continue rolling out its 100% rPET bottles in Europe. Coca-Cola European Partners has also highlighted the difference in its progress in various markets, with rPET at 60% in Australia and 40% in New Zealand. In Europe 75%-80% of packaging is being collected for recycling “with Great Britain and France being lower and some markets with [deposit return schemes] being much higher”.
Misleading minister
Ah, the DRS. Scotland’s has been delayed again. NGOs have bemoaned the big drinks brands for not fighting harder as industry lobby groups and politicians rounded on the scheme and the Scottish government. Scottish Green MSP Ross Greer has now called for an investigation into comments by the secretary of state for Scotland, Alistair Jack. Claims made by Jack that the Scottish government had not sought an Internal Market Act Exemption until March were “simply untrue” said the Scottish Greens, who accused him of “clearly and demonstrably” misleading the House of Commons about Scotland’s DRS.
Which brings us back to McDonald’s, which in the US has conjured up some positive press for its approach to – you’ve guessed it – reusable packaging (now you see why we are so confused). The chain has pledged to publish a “first-in-sector report” on the opportunities and risks posed by switching to reusable packaging. The move saw As You Sow withdraw its shareholder proposal which demanded information on how the fast food giant is shifting from single-use packaging to reuse. “We anticipate the report will demonstrate reusable packaging to be a critical component of sustainable operations and hope this action signals other quick-service restaurants to follow McDonald’s lead,” said Kelly McBee, from the shareholder activist group.
McBee told The Package the new report must be a lot better than ‘No silver bullet’ (she’s been asking the same questions as us given it “provides no actual data when reputing reuse, nor pathways for scaling reuse”). The 2024 version will for example have to illustrate what opportunities and risks full-scale reuse pose to the industry and the environment, and demonstrate how these are influenced by the systems change scenario proposed in the ‘Breaking the plastic wave’ report by Pew Charitable Trusts. “The proof is in the pudding,” she said “and we will see what the company publishes around this time next year”.
