Next Article in Journal
Recent Advances and Perspectives of Nanotechnology in Anaerobic Digestion: A New Paradigm towards Sludge Biodegradability
Next Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Development Solutions for the Medical Waste Problem Using Thermal Plasmas
Previous Article in Journal
Insect-Based Food: A (Free) Choice
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Survey on the Use of Plastic versus Biodegradable Bottles for Drinking Water Packaging in the United Arab Emirates
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/su14127189
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Banning Vs Taxing, Reviewing the Potential Opportunities and Challenges of Plastic Products

by
Goshu Desalegn
1,* and
Anita Tangl
2
1
Doctoral School of Economics and Regional Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly u. 1, 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
2
Institute of Rural Development and Sustainable Economy, Szent István Campus, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter Károly u. 1, 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(12), 7189; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127189
Submission received: 10 May 2022 / Revised: 6 June 2022 / Accepted: 9 June 2022 / Published: 12 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Degradation of Plastics in the Environment)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plastic products are used for a variety of services and are then dumped into the earth after use. These dumped plastics affect our health, socioeconomic conditions, coastal and marine environments, as well as our climate. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the potential opportunities and challenges of plastic products under the umbrella of banning and taxing. The discourse analysis approach was used in this study to critically analyze and summarize 42 relevant studies. The study developed two different storylines. The first storyline (S1) used taxing plastic products as an alternative strategy. The second storyline (S2) used banning plastic products as an opposing alternative strategy. The findings of the study show that taxing plastic products is frequently observed in developed countries, whereas banning plastic products is frequently observed in developing countries. Benefits in regards to revenue generation, creating public awareness, employment opportunities, industrial processes, construction processes, and recycling growth are highlighted under the taxing policy. On the other hand, a cleaner environment, tourism attraction, eco-friendly shopping, and a reduced ecological footprint are highlighted under the banning policy. Governments and policymakers play a critical role in developing and implementing the necessary legislative framework for dealing with plastic products.

1. Introduction

As climate change is the pervasive topic in today’s world, it is essential to explore and recognize the largest contributors to climate change. Plastic products are found to be a huge contributing factor to climate change in different ways. The fossil fuel industry is ranked as the third-largest source of carbon emissions, and it is informally linked to the growing plastic industry [1]. According to the study conducted by the authors of [2], producing a kilogram of the plastic product takes 185 L of water, and the production of these plastics is highly dependent on fossil feedstock (mainly natural gas and oil). It requires up to 6% of current global oil production to produce plastic products, and this is expected to increase to 20% by 2050 [3]. People started using plastic products to carry groceries and goods by hand in the 1950s, and these products quickly gained popularity over the last quarter of the twentieth century [4]. These plastic products have more than doubled between 1950 and 2015, with an annual output of 322 million metric tons (Mt) every year, which is expected to double by 2035, and nearly quadruple by 2050 [5].
Plastic bags are inexpensive products to manufacture; however, the low price does not account for the environmental costs of using plastic bags. For many years, plastic has been one of the most essential tools used to generate the materials of the physical world. These plastic items are dumped into the ground after usage, preventing the soil from producing nutrients. As a result, soil fertility is reduced, which has an impact on the agricultural outputs. Furthermore, from an economic point of view, improper plastic waste management decreases revenue generated from tourism, due to unsightly plastic products thrown everywhere. Moreover, the study conducted by the authors of [6] suggests that the domestic washing of textiles and garments is a constant and widespread source of plastic microfiber emissions into the environment.
For all their benefits, though, plastics also present challenges. In 2017, the United Nations declared plastic pollution a worldwide crisis [7]. The announcement caused several establishments to adjust their corporate strategies and start preparing for an accelerated transition to a circular economy. In recent years, technological improvements, societal changes, institutional amendments, and eliminating single-use plastics are viewed as positive changes toward reducing the impact of plastic products. However, the inadequacies and inefficiency of current plastic waste management will create another environmental crisis [8]. Furthermore, COVID-19 outbreaks take the complexities of plastic waste management to a challenging level. The way of life for individuals is becoming dependent on personal protective equipment, which increases the demand for plastic products [7].
The mitigation of plastic production is indicated to reduce the use of plastics as much as possible. However, the way to reduce the usage of these plastics is unclear. According to the authors of [9], Plastic bag waste is a major challenge in several countries across the world, especially in Africa, and governments have adopted various approaches for plastic bag waste management that include levies, bans, and/or the combination of the two to reduce the impact. On the other hand, some scholars argue that reducing the usage of plastic products can be done by providing training and awareness to the uneducated sector of consumers without banning and taxing [5]. Many arguments suggest consumers are obligated to be aware of the causes and impacts of plastic production through cost burden [6]. According to the research in [10], the selection of policies among countries is specific and comes down to the source of pollution, the country’s institutional characteristics and infrastructure, consumer preferences, habitual behavior, and the economy’s overall sectoral composition.
It is believed that significant societal change is required to achieve climate neutrality across the world; therefore, plastic tax, as part of green taxation, must be part of a larger policy framework that incorporates several measures, including price mechanisms, subsidies, standards, and public infrastructure investment [11]. A plastic tax is conceptually similar to a carbon tax, which imposes a carbon tax to punish utilities that produce the most emissions. These taxes target an externality, as economists call it: catastrophic climate change in the case of a carbon tax and runaway pollution in the case of a plastic tax. The impact of a plastic tax on consumers could raise the price of plastic products, thereby discouraging their use [12]. Besides, having a plastic tax could benefit society by establishing a price for social costs and incentivizing behavioral changes by businesses and individuals [13]. This action can help to mitigate plastic waste management and environmental crisis.
More specifically, at the country level, most developed and developing economies uses the strategy of taxing plastic products (see Table 1), whereas the majority of poor and developing economies have chosen to ban plastic products from the market, rather than to tax them. However, the study conducted by the authors of [14] suggested that blanket bans are not the best policy for developing and poor countries to reduce the effect of plastic products. Instead of turning to fees, creating consumer awareness and conducting campaign plans are better approaches to mitigate the effect. To this end, the study conducted by the authors of [4] suggests that taxing plastic products is a non-alternative method for the poor and developing countries, as they can generate more revenue from this taxation.
In this context, the circular economy is found as an alternative to the current linear structure, as it is more related to making, using, and disposing of the economic model [11], keeping resources in use for as long as possible, extracting the most value from them while in use [12]. A circular economy provides an opportunity to reduce the negative effects of plastics while maximizing the advantages of plastics and their products, resulting in environmental, economic, and societal benefits [13]. Particularly, the plastic tax has found an important basis for reducing the effect of plastic products, since it is a tax on environmentally harmful products [14]. On the other hand, the study conducted by the authors of [9] shows that banning plastic products is the best policy for those countries that cannot operate under a circular economy. However, the findings of the study further imply that several countries are struggling to reduce the harmful consequences of plastic bags, even after banning them, due to a lack of policy effectiveness.
This could raise the question among scholars as to why most countries choose to ban plastic bags rather than to convert to taxing them, as most developed countries do. This study will attempt to answer the above-raised question by systematically reviewing previously published studies on this specific study area. From the above discussions, the study identified taxing or banning as the main solutions for reducing the impact of plastic products. Various countries adopted different strategies based on their capacity to implement the policy, as well as their ability to identify the opportunities and challenges. The inconsistent findings of previously conducted studies motivated the authors to conduct the current study. More specifically, the policies adopted by a majority of African countries (banning plastic products, rather than taxing them), which is a reversal of the policies used by the majority of developed economies, is also another reason that motivates the authors to investigate the potential opportunities and challenges of plastic products. The study will contribute to the existing literature by summarizing the challenges and opportunities of plastic products using selected policies, and by providing future research direction for the study area. As the result, the main purpose of this study is to review the potential benefits and challenges of plastic products under the umbrella of taxing or banning plastic products. In line with reviewed papers, the study is also interested to investigating the current policies of different countries regarding plastic products. This could provide information to the readers regarding the number of counties currently banning plastic products from the market, as well as those dealing with them by minimizing their usage through taxation. Table 1 of the study shows the policies used by different countries across the world to manage the problem of plastic products.
Table 1 shows the type of policy implemented by each country, along with the respective year. Based on data availability, the study tries to investigate the policies adopted for plastic products. As it can be seen, the number of those countries that adopted taxing as an alternative policy is 24, whereas the number of countries with a banning policy is 27. These numbers may be close; however, the number of countries that implemented banning is greater. The policy of banning plastic product is frequently adopted in African countries, whereas the policy of taxing of plastic product is more widely adopted in Europe. Based on our data, Germany was the first country to impose a tax on plastic products in 1991, and this trend quickly spread, with Denmark imposing a tax on plastic bag products in 1994. On the hand, Bangladesh was the first country to ban plastic items from the market.
Figure 1 of the study shows the annual production of plastic products worldwide from 1950 to 2020 (in million metric tons). The data extracted from the World Bank implies that the number of plastic products produced annually is increasing over time. Despite growing concerns about the environmental consequences of both plastic production and waste, recent estimates show that plastic production and waste will more than double by 2035 [15]. Hence, internationally coordinated action from a variety of stakeholders is required.

2. Methodology and Material Used

The primary goal of this study was to investigate the potential opportunities and challenges of plastic products under the policies of either taxing or banning them. This study is based on reviews of other scientific literature on the subject. This study used a systematic review approach for evaluating the progress in this research field and developing new studies based on that progress. Many previous studies have used this method [16]. To ensure a representative and broad coverage of the literature, the search was pre-tested in various databases, and the most relevant databases were chosen for the review. Furthermore, the databases chosen have been used in previous similar reviews [17].
The study used Scopus, the Web of Science (WoS), Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases for collecting previously published papers. The rationale for using these databases is that they are considered the most widely used and the most recommended sources by previous studies [18]. The study includes the three top-ranked citation indices that are the most acknowledged and universally cited.

2.1. Extraction Criteria

The articles were extracted using keywords related to plastic products, challenges, opportunities, taxing plastic, and banning plastic. The search mainly focused on mapping the existing literature on plastic products in the field of business and economics, social sciences, environmental sciences, and other multidisciplinary fields. The systematic review approach is helpful to evaluate the progress in a research field and develop new studies based on that progress.
During the study’s systematic search for related articles, inclusion and exclusion criteria were used. The inclusion criteria were language identification (only English) and year of publication. Those studies published from 2000 to 2022 were included. This period was selected purposely, as the issue of environmental crisis gained increasing attention around the year 2000. The study excluded articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Finally, 455 studies were discovered through Scopus (73 studies), Web of Sciences (136), Science Direct (111), and Google Scholar (135). Of the identified 455 studies, after adjusting for duplication and screening issues, 42 relevant studies were chosen for the systematic review.

2.2. Sample Size

Regarding the sample size, there is no minimum sample size requirement for systematic reviews [19]. As a result, the current study’s sample size of 42 studies is regarded as adequate. The selection of sample studies is based on a PRISMA research flow chart for a new systematic review using different databases [20].

2.3. Discourse Analysis

After the necessary documents were extracted, discourse analysis was used in the study to recognize discursive interaction, and as a valuable tool for determining opinions, ideas, and facts about plastic products expressed in previously conducted studies [21]. Currently, academic scholars are becoming increasingly interested in the concept of discourse analysis. According to the study in [21], discourse analysis is a collection of ideas, thoughts, and perspectives that shape the overall meaning of physical phenomena by framing storylines.
The study developed two different storylines regarding the opportunities and challenges of plastic products. As a result, the first storyline (S1) is using taxing plastic products as an alternative strategy, and the second storyline (S2) bans plastic products as an alternative strategy. The 42 reviewed studies were used as respondents of the study to compare both storylines. Both storylines are interpreted by cross-checking the findings of previously conducted studies.
Each study’s data was extracted and entered into Covidence review software, and a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. In doing so, the year of publication of the papers, the authors’ names, the titles of the articles, the keywords, and the abstract of the studies were all extracted. The Mendeley Reference Manager was used to ensure that citations and documents were properly accounted for throughout the process. The following Figure 2 of the study shows methodological approach used to select intended documents through PRISMA flow chart.

3. Literature Research Strategy

The issue of plastic products is studied in different ways among different scholars. However, the majority of the studies have the same intention, which is to address the environmental problems caused by the use of plastic products, while each study has a different scope and content. The term “plastic product” is frequently used interchangeably with various keywords. As a result, the following keywords were found to be the most frequently used keywords along with “plastic products”—challenges, policies, lessons, tax, ban, waste, plastic bags, bags, pollution, and plastic waste. The results of keyword analysis indicate that the majority of previously conducted studies are interested in investigating the current waste management of plastic products by focusing on plastic legislation and policies. However, it is also better if more studies are conducted in the future on how technological innovations will respond to the current inefficient methods of waste plastic management. Figure 3 shows the keywords repeatedly used along with the plastic products terminologies.
Figure 3 of the study shows the line of network among keywords used in this study. The total documents used in this study classified in to two clusters (red and green) colors. The first cluster (red color) grouped those studies conducted on plastic pollution, waste management, and plastic wastes which can generalized under the concept of plastic effects. On the other hand, those studies conducted to investigate the challenges of plastic products, policies, plastic taxes, and plastic bag ban are clustered under the green color. The mapping of cluster two (green color) combined those studies conducted to show alternative mechanisms for managing plastic products. Despite the colors, all keywords were used to investigate the issue of plastic products under different scenario.

4. Results

Concerning the debate over plastic products, in this study, discourse analysis was used based on two separate storylines. The actors for both storylines are given special treatment to recognize both the opportunities and challenges of both storylines. The first storyline recognizes plastic bag taxes as an opportunity for sustainable development (S1), while storyline 2 recognizes banning plastic products from the market as an opportunity for sustainable development (S2). Previously conducted studies used the actors in both storylines. Figure 4 shows the content details of storylines 1 and 2, followed by a discussion from previously published studies.
The processes of the formation of the first and second storyline are depicted in Figure 4 of this study. Actors, in particular, express ideas about the benefits and challenges of taxing or banning plastic products. The first storyline’s legitimacy is based on the potential capacity of a plastic tax to promote sustainable development and environmental protection. Different authors support this storyline. The study conducted by the authors of [8] implies that the tax on plastic products is a key factor in transferring the household’s attitudes towards material recycling. Furthermore, the study conducted in [10] suggests that the overall beneficial impact of environmental taxes on items such as plastic bags results in reduced use, as well as a corresponding low cost of implementation. The study argues that taxing plastic products is the best policy to reduce its impact, as well as to generate revenue. The study conducted by the authors of [22] presented another finding which supports the taxing of plastic products. The study was conducted to show the empirical evidence regarding the ability of incineration taxes to change current waste management practices, as well to provide policymakers with insights into the effectiveness of an incineration tax. The findings imply that the decrease in the incineration tax did not change waste management practices. Different studies provide different outcomes regarding the benefits of having a tax on plastic products. Some argue that it could help in the generation of revenue for the government [23,24,25,26]. Taxing plastic products is viewed as a source of revenue for the economy, particularly in poor and developing countries [27,28,29]. The revenue generated by taxing plastic products is used to fund various government projects, while also indirectly creating job opportunities for the unemployed [30]. It is also believed that properly managed plastic waste creates employment opportunities for the unemployed segments of the societies [31]. Discarded plastic products can be collected and recycled. In this case, the collection of these plastic products from various waste areas provides employment opportunities for some low-income individuals.
Introducing a plastic tax is helpful for influencing both the manufacturer and the consumer. Taxed plastic products increase the price of plastic per user, and people are motivated to consume less plastic. People are generally found to be loss-averse and do not want to pay for something that was previously “free,” or “cheap.” For that reason, they often perceive a tax in a negative light, and tend to avoid it [32]. Furthermore, decreasing customer demand leads the manufacturing companies to look for other options and indirectly decreases the output level of plastic products [33]. To this end, a tax on plastic could further push manufacturers, scientists, and academic researchers to focus on more research and development regarding innovations to improve the efficiency of plastics [34,35].
Plastic products are used as raw materials in industrial and construction processing. Since they are used to produce plastic oil, they are used to lubricate industrial machines and generate oil that can be exported to foreign markets, prompting foreign exchange and saving millions of dollars in foreign currency that could have been used to import machine oil [36,37,38]. In this case, the benefit is greater for countries where agricultural activities account for the majority of their economy. It is also argued that plastic waste contributes significantly to energy recovery because energy recovered from plastic waste can contribute significantly to energy production [36]. As a result, the contribution of energy products obtained can be used to supplement the country’s current shortfalls in energy supply. To this end, imposing a tax on plastic products increases their price, and plastic materials are considered valuable by users; thus, they are usually sorted out for reuse. As a result, the materials are reused several times before they lose their utility value and are discarded [37].
Global experience implies that there could be a greater economic benefit from taxing plastic products. The study conducted in [38] implies that several countries, including England, Ireland, the Netherlands, China, the Philippines, and Australia, have demonstrated that a plastic bag fee is effective in reducing the use of plastic bags [39]. More specifically, according to the authors of [40], China introduced a plastic product tax, with a bag fee of CNY 0.20–0.50 in 2008. After the tax implementation, it was observed that the total plastic product consumption declined by 64%. Furthermore, the study conducted by [41] argues that, in England, after the introduction of a plastic bag fee of GBP 5 on major businesses in 2015, there was a 36% decrease in plastic product consumption.
According to the research presented in [35], Portugal introduced a plastic bag tax of EUR 0.10 on plastic bags in 2015, and following the introduction, there was a 74% reduction in plastic bag usage observed, and reusable plastic products increased by 64% after the introduction of the plastic tax. Furthermore, Wales introduced a single-use plastic bag fee of GBP 5 (USD 0.07) in 2011 [42]. Following the introduction of the plastic tax, a 70% reduction in consumption was observed. Hence, it can be observed that the global experience shows that the plastic product tax has shown a significant reduction in plastic bag consumption [38]. Plastic is also used in making vehicles lighter, and therefore more fuel-efficient. Plastic food wrapping prolongs food shelf-life and reduces excess food waste [43].
At the same time, the study discussed the opportunities for banning plastic products. Scholars argue that banning plastic products has an indirect contribution to economic growth. One pioneering study that supports the banning of plastic products is the study conducted by the authors of [30], which suggests that unmanaged plastic waste management can reduce the overall economic activities of a country by reducing its level of tourism. This suggestion is further extended and supported by the study in [44]. The plastic ban creates a cleaner environment, since there is no more plastic thrown onto the street. This is indirectly helpful in attracting tourism. Furthermore, the study conducted by the authors of [45] highlights that banning plastic products creates a new way of making environmentally friendly shopping bags. It argued that the plastic ban is expected to improve marine life and drainage infrastructure, while reducing the dependence of non-human activities on petroleum [46]. Hence, banning plastic products from the market could contribute to solving environmental issues, such as global warming and ocean acidification, as well as to the improvement the agricultural sector because these plastic products are serious problems for these previously mentioned activities.
The second part of the first storyline dealt with the challenges of imposing a tax on plastic products. In this regard, previous studies highlighted some challenges that are more specific to taxing plastic products [47]. As it can be seen in the above Figure 5 of the study, the identified challenges are a lack of proper collection systems, separation at the source of disposal, a properly designed operating system, clear policies and sanitation rules, organizational capacity, unreliable collection services, and a willingness to pay.
Lack of sorting the waste is also another challenge, as is supported by the study conducted by the authors of [48], who indicated that solid waste created in houses is discarded at transfer stations along with other plastic products, indicating that there is no tendency to sort organic waste at the household level. The study further suggests that organic materials come from rural areas, depleting nutrients from rural soil to feed the urban population; leftovers after consumption have no way of returning to the source to build the soil; instead, they are lost and cause problems for human health and the environment in different cities due to poor waste management. The study conducted by the authors of [49] implies that the challenges of most plastic products are related to the collecting system. Another issue regarding the collection of plastic waste is the number of containers in open area [45]. In this case, there must be sufficient containers to collect waste generated by households; otherwise, individuals will be forced to throw their garbage into an open area. If the proper plastic waste management is unimplemented, taxing plastic products does not solve any environmental issues while providing economic benefits. However, it is argued that the implementation of the tax forces users to seek other alternatives because the tax raises the price of plastic products, causing an unwillingness to pay that results a decrease in overall consumption.
The legitimacy of the second storyline (S2) is based on the potential ability to ban plastic products from the market to promote sustainable development and environmental protection [46,47,48,49]. Short-termism in unemployment was found to be the main disadvantage of banning plastic products. In this case, in the countries where the level of the manufacturing sector is much lower than the level of the agricultural sector, the substitution of plastic products will be difficult if plastics are banned [50,51,52].
More specifically, these bags are more detrimental to agricultural production because some crops cannot grow in areas where plastic bags have settled. Many countries around the world, particularly in Africa and Asia, are opting for a ban, rather than a tax, on plastic bags [53]. As evidence, in early 200, among Bangladeshi plastic bag users, between 85 and 90% of plastic bags in Dhaka were discarded on city streets after use. As a result, the Bangladeshi government prohibited the use of plastic bags in 2002 [54]. Furthermore, the experience gained from Rwanda shows that, after prohibiting the use of plastic products in 2008, the country became the cleanest city in the world [39].
In 2016, the Israeli government implemented a hybrid ban and levy strategy, prohibiting supermarkets from distributing plastic bags less than 20 microns thick and requiring them to charge for the use of thicker plastic bags. As a result, in the following year, plastic bag usage decreased by 80%. Furthermore, Botswana, South Africa, Mozambique, and China have initially combined the ban and levy approaches into a single strategy. These countries prohibit the use of plastic bags with less than a certain wall thickness and require retailers to charge a fee for thicker plastic bags [39].
Both storylines imply that plastic products have a significant environmental impact, as well as an economic benefit. Supporters of storyline 1 (S1) argue that taxation is more appropriate for poor and developing countries, where the majority of legal frameworks governing plastic products are ineffective. However, the result of empirical studies conducted on the practical application of plastic legislation shows reverse efficiency.

4.1. Descriptive Analysis of Reviewed Papers

The review was shaped by gathering resources from the various databases chosen for this study. After all criteria were met, 42 studies were used for the final discussion. As shown in Figure 6, the majority of the resources used in this study were articles from journals, accounting for 90% of the total. Conference paper contributed 5% of the total review study. The remaining 5% of the study was comprised of book sections and books, respectively.

4.2. Yearly Distribution of Materials Used

Among the resources used for this study, Figure 7 shows the yearly distribution of published articles used in this study and confirms a consistent increase in the publication of studies regarding plastic product issues, indicating that the research area is receiving increased scholarly attention, as evidenced by the consistent increase in publications. According to the study findings, there has been a significant increase in the number of publications from 2017, with two papers, to 2019, with 19 papers, indicating that plastic products are still at the heart of current research areas involving finance, economics, and environmental studies.

4.3. Methodological Characteristics of Reviewed Studies on Plastic Products

This study also highlights the methodological aspects of the reviewed studies, which differ in terms of data collection and analysis methods. The study’s findings show that there were many different methodological research designs used in conducting plastic product research over time. For example, with a 38% contribution, the econometric analysis was used in the majority of the studies used in this review. Moreover, comparative analysis, econometric analysis, trend analysis, qualitative analysis, cluster analysis, correlation analysis, systematic analysis, status analysis, and hybrid analysis were the types of data analyses used in previously conducted studies. The following (Table 2) shows the details of the methodological characteristics used in previous studies.

5. Discussion

This study systematically reviews the challenges and opportunities of plastic products under two different policies (banning and taxing). The fast scanning of the study result implies that global academic interest in plastic products is increasing over time. The methodological approach used in the reviewed papers varied based on their objectives, and the approach chose was found to be a benchmark for those scholars interested in conducting a new study on the specific area of plastic products. The results of keyword analysis indicate the areas in which academic writers are interested in investigating, namely the current policies and procedures, legal frameworks, taxing, banning, and waste management of plastic products. Furthermore, the review results of previously conducted studies imply that there are factors that influence policy choices among countries. Those factors are classified as global and national problem pressure, global public pressure, and national lobby groups, as well as political and technical feasibilities. The results also showed that the degree of influence varies between countries.
More specifically, the study looked at how different countries implemented policies to reduce the impact of plastic products, such as by banning or taxing them. The findings show that the majority of developed economies have implemented a policy of taxing plastic products, whereas the majority of developing countries have implemented a policy of banning them. It was discovered that in 1991, Germany was the first country to impose a tax on plastic products, and this idea quickly spread, with Denmark imposing a tax on plastic bag products in 1994. Even though Germany and Denmark were the first countries to impose plastic bag taxes in 1991 and 1994, the previously conducted study [55] indicates that only Denmark can be regarded as a plastic bag policy pioneer. It stated that in Germany, the tax imposed was on all packaging materials that were considered waste, specifically plastic bags. On the hand, Bangladesh was the first country to ban plastic items from the market [56]. The decision was made after the majority of plastic bags in the country (between 85 and 90%) were thrown in the streets after use. As a result, in 2002, the Bangladeshi government outlawed the use of plastic bags.
Both policies have advantages and disadvantages; however, the selection primarily depends on the countries’ ability to manage the chosen policies. A plastic product ban is frequently observed in African countries [57]. The reasoning behind this is that taxing keeps plastic products on the market, which necessitates proper management of disposals made by each household. This management entails preparing disposal containers in every corner of the city, developing proper collection systems, separating the disposal source, creating a properly designed operating system, instituting responsible policies and sanitation rules, assuring organizational capacity, and initiating reliable collection services. The study conducted by the authors of [9] supports the above argument by providing evidence that African countries are hindering effective plastic bag waste management because of poorly enforced plastic bag legislation, resistance from stakeholders, and limited effective substitutes. Besides, every household’s awareness plays a big role in implementing these management tools. However, in the context of Africa, where the level of educational outreach is low compared to that in developed countries [9], it is difficult to tax plastic products using those highlighted management mechanisms, since using and discarding plastics on the street is becoming a tradition [34].
On the other hand, it argued that the tax on plastic products would allow the continued production of single-use plastics, generating revenue to subsidize the recycling industry [31]. This revenue would be used to fund recycling and composting infrastructure, which would help to boost overall economic growth. In theory, it was thought that instituting tax policies on plastic products would render recycled materials more competitive, making it economically viable for a product manufacturer to use recycled products [35].
A plastic tax is conceptually similar to a carbon tax, in which a tax is imposed to punish utilities that produce the most emissions. Ideally, this has two advantages. First, it incentivizes polluters to reduce carbon emissions by switching to renewable energy sources. Second, the tax revenue is used to fund green energy projects, or is returned to residents as a dividend. These taxes target an externality, as economists call it: catastrophic climate change, in the case of a carbon tax, and runaway pollution, in the case of a plastic tax. The impact of a plastic tax on consumers could raise the price of plastic products, thereby discouraging their use.
Finally, under the premise of banning and taxing, this study summarized the following points as the potential benefits and challenges of plastic products. In doing so, the narratives were constructed using discourse analysis, and investigations were conducted based on the developed storylines.
The study summarized that having a tax on plastic products could provide more opportunities for the countries that are effective in applying plastic legislation, and create a great challenge for those countries with poorly enforced plastic bag legislation. Taxing plastic products will benefit the generation of revenue, employment, industrial processes, construction processes, and recycling. However, a lack of proper collection systems, separation at the source of disposal, a properly designed operating system, clear sanitation rules, organizational capacity, reliable collection services, and a willingness to pay were found to be existing challenges of taxing plastic products, as a tax keeps the plastics on the market.
Furthermore, all stakeholders must develop an awareness of the usage of plastic products. Plastic manufacturers, as well as firms and individuals who import plastic bags for sale, must create consumer awareness and campaigns to implement more changes regarding plastic bag operations. Governments and policymakers play a critical role in developing the necessary legislative framework to encourage mitigation actions that contribute to the reduction in plastic waste at the source, as well as encouraging the cleanup of plastic pollution on coastlines.
More specifically, community-based associations have found it necessary to overcome this issue. Private businesses, of course, have had to rethink their business models to shift their focus to recycling or bag manufacturing. Those countries which adopted the banning policy should question themselves, since taxing plastic products using the proper management of plastic legislation will generate many economic benefits to that country. This study suggests that future research be conducted regarding which policy will benefit specific countries, from an environmental and economic point of view, by making comparative analyses among different countries that adopt different policies within the same continent. The study also suggests that future studies be conducted on why banning diffusion is so high in Africa. In addition, it is important to investigate how African policymakers respond to this issue.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D. and A.T.; Formal analysis, G.D. and A.T.; Methodology, G.D.; Supervision, A.T.; Validation, A.T.; Writing—original draft, G.D.; Writing—review & editing, G.D. and A.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Science, Doctorial School of Economics and Regional Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not Applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not Applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

We declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Parry, I.W. Reforming the tax system to promote environmental objectives: An application to Mauritius. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 77, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Leonard, S.; Barra, R. Plastics and the Circular Economy. Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel to the Global Environment Facility, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) to the Global Environment Facility. 2018. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1785 (accessed on 2 April 2022).
  3. Skirtun, M.; Sandra, M.; Strietman, W.J.; Burg, S.W.V.D.; De Raedemaecker, F.; Devriese, L.I. Plastic pollution pathways from marine aquaculture practices and potential solutions for the North-East Atlantic region. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2022, 174, 113–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Filho, W.L.; Saari, U.; Fedoruk, M.; Iital, A.; Moora, H.; Klöga, M.; Voronova, V. An overview of the problems posed by plastic products and the role of extended producer responsibility in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 214, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Liu, C.; Nguyen, T.T.; Ishimura, Y. Current situation and key challenges on the use of single-use plastic in Hanoi. Waste Manag. 2021, 121, 422–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pirc, U.; Vidmar, M.; Mozer, A.; Kržan, A. Emissions of microplastic fibers from microfiber fleece during domestic washing. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 22206–22211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vanapalli, K.R.; Sharma, H.B.; Ranjan, V.P.; Samal, B.; Bhattacharya, J.; Dubey, B.K.; Goel, S. Challenges and strategies for effective plastic waste management during and post COVID-19 pandemic. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 750, 141–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sahlin, J.; Ekvall, T.; Bisaillon, M.; Sundberg, J. Introduction of a waste incineration tax: Effects on the Swedish waste flows. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2007, 51, 827–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nyathi, B.; Togo, C.A. Overview of Legal and Policy Framework Approaches for Plastic Bag Waste Management in African Countries. J. Environ. Public Health 2020, 2020, 8892773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Oosterhuis, F.; Papyrakis, E.; Boteler, B. Economic instruments and marine litter control. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 102, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dissou, Y.; Siddiqui, M.S. Can carbon taxes be progressive? Energy Econ. 2014, 42, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, Z.; Dong, J. Research on Green Taxation Policy for Promoting Low-Carbon Economy. In Proceedings of the 2011 Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, Wuhan, China, 25–28 March 2011; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2011; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  13. Saelim, S. Carbon tax incidence on household consumption: Heterogeneity across socio-economic factors in Thailand. Econ. Anal. Policy 2019, 62, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Norouzi, N.; Fani, M.; Talebi, S. Green tax as a path to greener economy: A game theory approach on energy and final goods in Iran. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 156, 111968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Clayton, C.A.; Walker, T.R.; Bezerra, J.C.; Adam, I. Policy responses to reduce single-use plastic marine pollution in the Caribbean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 162, 111–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, W.-Y.; Hsu, C.-H.; Liu, T.-J.; Chen, P.-E.; Zheng, B.; Chien, C.-W.; Tung, T.-H. Systematic Review of the Effect of a Zero-Markup Policy for Essential Drugs on Healthcare Costs and Utilization in China, 2015–2021. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 618046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Owusu-Sekyere, E.; Osumanu, I.K.; Abdul-Kadri, Y. An analysis of the plastic waste collection and wealth linkages in Ghana. Int. J. Curr. Res. 2013, 5, 205–209. [Google Scholar]
  18. Harzing, A.-W.; Alakangas, S. Microsoft Academic: Is the phoenix getting wings? Scientometrics 2017, 110, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Debrah, C.; Chan, A.P.C.; Darko, A. Green finance gap in green buildings: A scoping review and future research needs. Build. Environ. 2022, 207, 108443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lang, M.; Lane, R.; Zhao, K.; Tham, S.; Woolfe, K.; Raven, R. Systematic review: Landlords’ willingness to retrofit energy efficiency improvements. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 303, 127041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hodges, B.D.; Kuper, A.; Reeves, S. Discourse analysis. Br. Med. J. 2008, 337, 570–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Weerdt, L.; Sasao, T.; Compernolle, T.; Van Passel, S.; De Jaeger, S. The effect of waste incineration taxation on industrial plastic waste generation: A panel analysis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 157, 104717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Convery, F.; McDonnell, S.; Ferreira, S. The most popular tax in Europe? Lessons from the Irish plastic bags levy. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2007, 38, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ali, Y.; Sara, S. How to tackle plastic bags and bottles pollution crisis in Pakistan? A cost-benefit analysis approach. Environ. Ecol. Stat. 2021, 28, 697–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Friedrich, D. How environmental goals influence consumer willingness-to-pay for a plastic tax: A discrete-choice analytical study. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 8218–8245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Muposhi, A.; Mpinganjira, M.; Wait, M. Efficacy of plastic shopping bag tax as a governance tool: Lessons for South Africa from Irish and Danish success stories. Acta Commer.-Indep. Res. J. Manag. Sci. 2021, 21, 891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pazienza, P.; De Lucia, C. For a new plastics economy in agriculture: Policy reflections on the EU strategy from a local perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mogomotsi, P.K.; Mogomotsi, G.E.; Phonchi, N.D. Plastic bag usage in a taxed environment: Investigation on the deterrent nature of plastic levy in Maun, Botswana. Waste Manag. Res. J. Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2019, 37, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. O’Brien, J.; Thondhlana, G. Plastic bag use in South Africa: Perceptions, practices and potential intervention strategies. Waste Manag. 2019, 84, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kasidoni, M.; Moustakas, K.; Malamis, D. The existing situation and challenges regarding the use of plastic carrier bags in Europe. Waste Manag. Res. J. A Sustain. Circ. Econ. 2015, 33, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Matheson, M.T. Disposal Is Not Free: Fiscal Instruments to Internalize the Environmental Costs of Solid Waste. International Monetary Fund. 2019. Available online: https://www.elibrary.imf.org/ (accessed on 2 April 2022).
  32. Walker, T.; Gramlich, D.; Dumont-Bergeron, A. The Case for a Plastic Tax: A Review of Its Benefits and Disadvantages within a Circular Economy. In Sustainability (Business and Society 360); Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; Volume 4, pp. 185–211. [Google Scholar]
  33. Romano, A.; Sotis, C. Odi et Amo: A nudge to reduce the consumption of single-use carrier bags. Waste Manag. 2021, 120, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Deme, G.G.; Ewusi-Mensah, D.; Olagbaju, O.A.; Okeke, E.S.; Okoye, C.O.; Odii, E.C.; Ejeromedoghene, O.; Igun, E.; Onyekwere, J.O.; Oderinde, O.K.; et al. Macro problems from microplastics: Toward a sustainable policy framework for managing microplastic waste in Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 804, 150170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wagner, T.P. Reducing single-use plastic shopping bags in the USA. Waste Manag. 2017, 70, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhao, X.; Korey, M.; Li, K.; Copenhaver, K.; Tekinalp, H.; Celik, S.; Kalaitzidou, K.; Ruan, R.; Ragauskas, A.J.; Ozcan, S. Plastic waste upcycling toward a circular economy. Chem. Eng. J. 2022, 428, 131928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nielsen, T.D.; Holmberg, K.; Stripple, J. Need a bag? A review of public policies on plastic carrier bags–Where, how and to what effect? Waste Manag. 2019, 87, 428–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Behuria, P. The Comparative Political Economy of Plastic Bag Bans in East Africa: Why Implementation Has Varied in Rwanda, Kenya and Uganda; (No. 372019); GDI, The University of Manchester: Manchester, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  39. Chasse, C. Evaluation of Legal Strategies for The Reduction of Plastic Bag Consumption. Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. Available online: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream (accessed on 20 April 2022).
  40. He, H. Effects of environmental policy on consumption: Lessons from the Chinese plastic bag regulation. Environ. Dev. Econ. 2012, 17, 407–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Poortinga, W.; Sautkina, E.; Thomas, G.O.; Wolstenholme, E. The English plastic bag charge: Changes in attitudes and behaviour. 2016. Available online: https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/94652 (accessed on 22 April 2022).
  42. Poortinga, W.; Whitmarsh, L.; Suffolk, C. The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: Attitude change and behavioural spillover effects. J. Environ. Psychol. 2013, 36, 240–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Napper, I.E.; Thompson, R.C. Plastic Debris in the Marine Environment: History and Future Challenges. Glob. Chall. 2020, 4, 1900081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. McLellan, H.; Aquarium, T.O. Banning the plastic shopping bag in South Africa: An idea whose time has come. In Proceedings of the 20th Wastecon Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, 6–10 October 2014; pp. 248–255. [Google Scholar]
  45. Taylor, R.L. Bag leakage: The effect of disposable carryout bag regulations on unregulated bags. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2019, 93, 254–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gómez, I.D.L.; Escobar, A.S. The dilemma of plastic bags and their substitutes: A review on LCA studies. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hardy, S.D.; Bartolotta, J. Plastic cigar tips debris: Exploring use and disposal issues for Lake Erie beaches. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 137, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Regassa, N.; Sundaraa, R.D.; Seboka, B.B. Challenges and Opportunities in Municipal Solid Waste Management: The Case of Addis Ababa City, Central Ethiopia. J. Hum. Ecol. 2011, 33, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Moshood, T.D.; Nawanir, G.; Mahmud, F.; Mohamad, F.; Ahmad, M.H.; AbdulGhani, A. Sustainability of biodegradable plastics: New problem or solution to solve the global plastic pollution? Curr. Res. Green Sustain. Chem. 2022, 5, 100–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Schnurr, R.E.; Alboiu, V.; Chaudhary, M.; Corbett, R.A.; Quanz, M.E.; Sankar, K.; Srain, H.S.; Thavarajah, V.; Xanthos, D.; Walker, T.R. Reducing marine pollution from single-use plastics (SUPs): A review. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2018, 137, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Chitotombe, J.W.; Gukurume, S. The plastic bag ‘ban’ controversy in Zimbabwe: An analysis of policy issues and local responses. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 3, 1000–1012. [Google Scholar]
  52. Macintosh, A.; Simpson, A.; Neeman, T.; Dickson, K. Plastic bag bans: Lessons from the Australian Capital Territory. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 154, 104–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ryu, J.-H.; Choi, J.-K.; Lee, Y.-K. Potential of remote sensing in management of tidal flats: A case study of thematic mapping in the Korean tidal flats. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2014, 102, 458–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Willis, K.; Maureaud, C.; Wilcox, C.; Hardesty, B.D. How successful are waste abatement campaigns and government policies at reducing plastic waste into the marine environment? Mar. Policy 2018, 96, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Knoblauch, D.; Mederake, L. Government policies combatting plastic pollution. Curr. Opin. Toxicol. 2021, 28, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Raha, U.K.; Kumar, B.R.; Sarkar, S.K. Policy Framework for Mitigating Land-based Marine Plastic Pollution in the Gangetic Delta Region of Bay of Bengal-A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Knoblauch, D.; Mederake, L.; Stein, U. Developing Countries in the Lead—What Drives the Diffusion of Plastic Bag Policies? Sustainability 2018, 10, 61994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 07189 g001 550
Figure 1. Annual production of plastics worldwide from 1950 to 2020 (in million metric tons).
Figure 1. Annual production of plastics worldwide from 1950 to 2020 (in million metric tons).
Sustainability 14 07189 g001
Sustainability 14 07189 g002 550
Figure 2. Study selection process flowchart.
Figure 2. Study selection process flowchart.
Sustainability 14 07189 g002
Sustainability 14 07189 g003 550
Figure 3. Keywords repeatedly used along with plastic products.
Figure 3. Keywords repeatedly used along with plastic products.
Sustainability 14 07189 g003
Sustainability 14 07189 g004 550
Figure 4. Opportunities found in storylines 1 and 2.
Figure 4. Opportunities found in storylines 1 and 2.
Sustainability 14 07189 g004
Sustainability 14 07189 g005 550
Figure 5. Challenges of storylines 1 and 2.
Figure 5. Challenges of storylines 1 and 2.
Sustainability 14 07189 g005
Sustainability 14 07189 g006 550
Figure 6. The proportion of different types of reviews used in the study.
Figure 6. The proportion of different types of reviews used in the study.
Sustainability 14 07189 g006
Sustainability 14 07189 g007 550
Figure 7. Annual publications over time.
Figure 7. Annual publications over time.
Sustainability 14 07189 g007
Table
Table 1. Country policies on plastic products.
Table 1. Country policies on plastic products.
NoType of PolicyCountries and Years of Policy Creation
1BanFrance (2016), Nepal (2016), Georgia (2017), Moldova (2017), Panama (2018), Australia (2018), Turkey (2019), Bahamas (2020), India (2002), Bangladesh (2002), Eritrea (2005), Somaliland (2005), Tanzania (2006), Republic of Congo (2011), Niger (2013), Cameroon (2014), Rwanda (2004), Ivory Coast (2014), Gambia (2015), Madagascar (2015), Senegal (2015), Malawi (2015), Papua New Guinea (2016), Morocco (2016), Benin (2017), Tunisia (2017), Ethiopia (2020).
2TaxHong Kong (2015), Portugal (2015), Netherlands (2016), Israel (2017), Estonia (2017), Norway (2017), Colombia (2017), Cyprus (2018), Czech Republic (2018), Poland (2018), Greece (2018), Lithuania (2018), Luxemburg (2018), Spain (2018), Croatia (2019), Latvia (2019), Germany (1991), Denmark (1994), Ireland (2002), Romania (2006), Macedonia (2009), South Africa (2003), Mozambique (2016), Gabon (2010).
Source: authors (2022).
Table
Table 2. Methodological characteristics of reviewed studies on plastic products.
Table 2. Methodological characteristics of reviewed studies on plastic products.
Methodological TypeNumber of StudiesPercentage
Comparative analysis819
Econometric analysis1638
Trend analysis37
Qualitative analysis717
Cluster analysis25
Correlation analysis25
Systematic analysis25
Status analysis12
Hybrid analysis12
Total42100
Source: Authors (2022).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Desalegn, G.; Tangl, A. Banning Vs Taxing, Reviewing the Potential Opportunities and Challenges of Plastic Products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127189

AMA Style

Desalegn G, Tangl A. Banning Vs Taxing, Reviewing the Potential Opportunities and Challenges of Plastic Products. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127189

Chicago/Turabian Style

Desalegn, Goshu, and Anita Tangl. 2022. "Banning Vs Taxing, Reviewing the Potential Opportunities and Challenges of Plastic Products" Sustainability 14, no. 12: 7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127189

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop