1. Introduction
From a business perspective, the food delivery business is considered as an on-demand fulfilment player in the e-commerce ecosystem. It is a multidimensional platform business that needs network inputs from several stakeholders. At the early stage, the food delivery companies use a ‘Loss Leader’ strategy where they accept an initial financial loss to create lively market environments and to implant new consumption behaviors. To this day, the platform continues to expand its business operations to best meet ever-increasing consumer needs. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) event has delayed most economic activities. However, the food delivery business thrived in response to emerging needs and rapid digital disruption. The changing market environment has forced businesses to design consumer-centric solutions on a day-to-day basis to keep up with the demand. The legal factor that accelerated the growth of food delivery services was the government measures that prohibited restaurant dine-in; only takeaway and delivery orders were allowed. The World Bank Group [
1] pointed out that COVID-19 has significantly increased the consumption of food delivery. The Standard Wealth [
2] reported a substantial change in online food-ordering habits in a global landscape. In Tokyo, the number of people who ordered food via a mobile application doubled in 2020. Taiwan, Hongkong, Japan, China, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and India have witnessed the post-COVID-19 growth of the food delivery business and are all pushing investment and innovation into it. In Thailand, food delivery businesses exhibited their financial success during the past few years since launching, and consumers promptly responded to this new lifestyle solution. Influenced by COVID-19, this business experienced a 150% growth rate during the first half of 2020. The order reached 66–68 million transactions with a 78–84% growth rate in 2020 [
3]. Tanakasempipat [
4] added that COVID-19 has multiplied the transaction amount by 50–400%. Due to rapid expansion, several new businesses entered the market during 2020–2021. Most of them were introduced as subsidiaries under existing big brands in industries such as e-commerce, banking, telecommunications, and airlines.
Despite the impressive financial figures, this convenience-based business poses a threat to the planet’s carrying capacity. It exacerbates the lazy economy and throw-away culture, which intensifies several environmental impacts. One of them is single-use plastic (SUP) waste. The COVID-19 outbreak has escalated the plastic waste problem globally. Thailand’s Pollution Control Department, in 2021 [
5], estimated that, as people were asked to stay home, food delivery consumption increased by 30%, thus generating a 15% increase in overall plastic waste [
6]. With the assumption that each food delivery order generates 4–11 pieces of plastic, it is estimated that 250–560 million pieces of SUP are generated each year from this business [
5,
7,
8,
9,
10]. The top three plastic waste from food delivery services are plastic bags, hot-and-cold food bags, and plastic food containers [
11]. Moreover, COVID-19 has delayed the effort in campaigning against SUP in many countries. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, San Francisco, and many other states suspended a ban on polystyrene foam containers, as well as imposed a temporary ban on reusable shopping bags and allowed retailers to give out free plastic bags. Scotland postponed its packaging deposit return scheme (DRS) to late 2022. India suspended the ban on SUP bags and bottles. The United Kingdom removed SUP bag charges from delivery services [
12]. Thailand, according to the roadmap, should have been phasing out SUPs by 2020. Nevertheless, plastic bans were relaxed during the pandemic. The bring-your-own campaign was paused, and most restaurants rejected private containers.
This study views SUP problems from the system perspective. Because sustainable development is about balancing three interconnected pillars, a non-linear approach can enhance the understanding of multidimensional problems in a dynamic world. Systems thinking, or organic thinking, has gained more popularity in assisting holistic policy decisions. It aims to leverage the system towards a self-organizing stage so that it can continue operating in a more sustainable direction. Theoretically, the systems of provision theory develops from the narrowness of the mainstream neo-classical utilitarian approach. The systems theory explains that every day (un)sustainable consumption practices are supported or constrained by the existing systems [
13]. It believes that a meso-level examination of the system needs to replace a sole focus on micro- or macro-level agencies because a single dimension analysis cannot depict the interrelations between structure and agencies [
14,
15,
16]. Berkhout [
17] also pointed out that unless the system is designed to reinforce green consumption, it is not likely that we can expect a green lifestyle. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Thai consumers were obligated to buy takeaway meals. Choice of packaging was also limited. Therefore, this research relies on systems thinking and systems dynamics, which is a popular approach under systems thinking. It contributes to the holistic perspective of SUPs reduction, considering variables at production, consumption, and postconsumption stages from both policy and businesses outlooks.
The research process is shown in
Figure 1. Targeted sustainable initiatives were reviewed through the interviews. Under the systems thinking approach, data from the interviews went through thematic analysis, which produced system themes. In parallel, a qualitative system dynamics model (QSDM) was drafted based on the researchers’ initial review of current situations, comprising three causal loop diagrams (CLDs). Through semi-structured interviews, stakeholders were asked to review and iterate each CLD, which was then integrated into the QSDM. The interviews were conducted again for the final QSDM iteration. These analysis results contributed to the system’s leverage points, which were interpreted into system intervention strategies. This paper is structured as follows.
Section 2 introduces systems thinking and system dynamics theory, together with the tools and approaches adopted in this research.
Section 3 reviews initiatives in the food sector, focusing on plastic waste from the food delivery service. It explores market governance initiatives and private-led initiatives. Four initiatives were selected as a subject of study.
Section 4 provides the results from the thematic analysis and QSDM. Themes and diagrams are obtained in this section.
Section 5 discusses leverage points and system intervention strategies.
Section 6 draws conclusions and research contributions.
3. Single-Use Plastic Reduction Initiatives in the Food Sector
3.1. Market Governance Initiatives
Viewing the market as a system with failures, a sustainable market is hindered by conflicts of interest among the actors and between the actors and structure. First, ‘measurement failure’ refers to the fact that economic prosperity is a development priority in every country. Second, ‘self-regulation failure’ refers to the voluntary nature of sustainability practices among private corporations. Therefore, governance is a key component that regulates the system to produce the desired outcome. This section reviews relevant laws, regulations, policies, and practices. The European Commission has introduced the directive on Single-Use Plastic Products 2019/904, which has been transposed into national law. Measures such as market bans, consumption reductions, and EPR were proposed. Under the Packaging Waste Directive, EPR requires producers to cover the costs of waste prevention, waste collection and treatment, litter clean-up, data gathering, and consumer awareness-raising. Likewise, the Chinese government has introduced measures that promote alternative packaging in the food delivery and e-commerce sectors. It also calls for optimized business models, and waste segregation and recycling facilities [
45]. Under the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)’s PACT (Plastic ACTion) initiative, food delivery platforms, Grab, Foodpanda, and Deliveroo in Singapore signed the pledge and implement initiatives such as setting ‘no cutlery’ as a default, providing restaurant guidelines, exploring alternatives, and pilot tests with returnable packaging. The extended producer responsibility (EPR) concept receives significant attention. Although EPR originally focused on the producers’ responsibility of their product beyond the production stages, its definition has been extended to cover responsibilities at other stages. In this study, EPR covers the responsibility of food delivery companies, food retailers and restaurants, which facilitate intermediate supply and demand for packaging.
In Thailand, as food delivery business is relatively new to the market, the governances are not yet comprehensive. In alignment with the national strategy, the Plastic Waste Management Road Map, 2018–2030, sets out to ban plastic bags less than 36 microns in thickness, styrofoam food containers, SUP cups, and straws by 2022. However, the ban is not legally binding. The tax incentives for bio-packaging also received little interest. As COVID-19 underlines the urgency of the problems, the Pollution Control Department (PCD) under the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and another 14 agencies, including major food delivery platforms, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in August 2020 to tackle the SUP problem in food delivery. The main strategies include 1. making the ‘no cutlery’ function the default option in the mobile application, 2. introducing the restaurants’ eco-label in the mobile application, 3. providing an incentive (discount) or disincentive (charges) to consumers to choose greener packaging, 4. promoting environmentally friendly restaurants, 5. disseminating information among supply chain actors, particularly consumers, 6. providing incentives to restaurants for a greener packaging choice, and 7. providing subsidies for green packaging. Additionally, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), in partnership with PCD, initiated the ‘rethinking plastics—circular economy solutions to marine litter’ [
45]. The project promotes ‘reducing single-use plastics in food delivery and takeaway’ which suggests 1. tax and non-tax incentives, 2. packaging standards (e.g., materials, recyclability, and biodegradability), 3. take-back systems, and 4. waste management systems improvement. Although these voluntary approaches have contributed to aggregated awareness, their contribution to SUP reduction efforts is still limited.
3.2. Private-Led Initiatives
As SUP waste problems from food delivery services have received more public attention, private sustainability projects were increasingly initiated as part of the corporate responsibility program. Globally, the most common SUP reduction strategy is to set ‘no cutlery’ as a default option as a nudge to consumer behavior. Some platforms, such as Foodpanda in Singapore and Hong Kong, and Meituan Waimai in China, offer rewards for no-cutlery orders via a point system. Occasionally, a fee is applicable for additional bags or containers requested. Deliveroo, Foodpanda, and Meituan Waimai in the UK, Australia, Singapore, and China establishes partnerships with food packaging companies to offer discounts for eco-friendly packaging to their merchant partners. Some of the platforms bring reusable packaging into their business model through DRS. Meituan Waimai, a major food delivery platform in China, works with the China Packaging Federation on the provision of alternative packaging. Foodpanda and Deliveroo in Singapore partnered with bearPack, a packaging company, to develop a reuse system. In addition, the Alternative Materials Tool system was developed to assist the restaurant partners in choosing packaging materials with the least environmental impact. Likewise, other service providers are looking for sustainable solutions through business partnerships and government support in terms of eco innovation.
Moreover, there are new players whose business models are developed on a sustainable basis. These companies are either established in the form of the delivery platform itself or in the supporting services. Go Box partners with more than 100 local food vendors in Portland and San Francisco Bay, United States and distributes returnable food containers and coffee cups for takeaway orders. A membership system was established together with more than 30 drop sites. Go Box also encourages office buildings to have their own drop sites. DeliverZero in New York City, as well as Recircle in Switzerland established a reuse system for takeaway restaurants. Once the Tupperware is worn out, Recircle purchases them back from their restaurant partners at the same price and forwards them to the recycling system. Other food delivery startups that adopt deposit return models include DabbaDrop and Dabbawala, Deliveround, Sharepack, Vanilla Bean, Ozarka, Ozzi, reBOX, Yumiie, and Returnr, located in the UK, India, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, US, Switzerland, and Australia. 90% of them establish deposit and rewards systems [
46]. In India, Zomato and UberEats, responded positively to the government’s SUP ban. However, the sustainable practice is hindered by the lack of alternative containers. In South Korea, a public-private agreement was formed to increase the recyclability of food packaging and promote reusable containers in restaurants [
47].
In Thailand, food delivery platforms’ actions towards plastic reduction include setting ‘no cutlery’ as a default, developing consumers feedback system, promoting green merchants, and procuring green packaging through partnership with 15–25% discount. Several startup platforms initiated the DRS business model, but the impact is still limited. Some local restaurants adopt the DRS within their neighboring ecosystem. ‘Send plastic back home’ is a project that is a partnership between the public, private sector, the social enterprise, and social groups. It conducts an information campaign on household waste separation and developed a plastic take-back system. Moreover, Central, a retail mall group, initiated the ‘Rethink’ project that accepts used (clean) SUP food containers in exchange for discounts in various stores.
3.3. Target Initiatives
The target initiatives were obtained from the review of concepts and cases of sustainability programs in food delivery businesses in Thailand and other countries. They were also derived from actual policies under the established guidelines that the Thai government and relevant stakeholders are currently working on implementing. This study analyzes four theory-based initiatives from a systems perspective with the aim of improving their penetration strategies considering the existing systems structure.
3.3.1. No Cutlery Defaults
Platforms set ‘no cutlery’ as a default option for every transaction throughout the platforms. Consumers need to make a request if they want SUP cutlery. Theoretically, setting a default can be regarded as a nudge, which is a behavioral instrument in behavioral economics that could reduce the number of steps taken by consumers to opt for a greener choice.
3.3.2. Packaging Procurement
Platforms establish partnerships with packaging suppliers and offer discounts to merchant partners. This initiative aims to change the system of practice from the supply side through the provision of affordable and greener packaging options. It holds the principle of corporate responsibility that the platforms are expected to absorb additional costs incurred from changing to green packaging to correct the pricing failure in the market.
3.3.3. Labelling Program
Platforms add an ‘eco-label’ to restaurants that use environmentally friendly packaging. Additionally, the food delivery platforms can promote green restaurants as a category. Ideally, information provision can lead to better consumer decisions. From a marketing perspective, eco-labelling can act as a differentiation point for a restaurant [
13]. From the policy viewpoint, informative instruments are endorsed by many development schools as one of the policy mechanisms that the governing actors could adopt to induce behavioral change.
3.3.4. Deposit Return Scheme (DRS)
Platforms develop a deposit return system as part of the EPR scheme. Consumers are required to roughly rinse their containers and return at the drop sites. Alternatively, they can make a pick-up appointment via mobile application. The platforms will then take back the containers to properly clean and reallocate back to the restaurants. Additionally, the government could provide support on systems and infrastructure. However, this scheme is challenging because the key ‘reason to buy’ of food delivery consumers is the ‘convenience’ attribute that the platforms offer. Besides, the overall economic return might be negative due to the high operation and logistics cost.
4. Results
Thematic analysis and QSDM were conducted through semi-structured interviews. The stakeholders included four parties (
n = 14); policy-level stakeholders (
n = 4), food delivery platforms (
n = 3), restaurant partners (
n = 5), and civil society organizations (
n = 2). Expert stakeholders were selected to enhance validity in the research process. The interview questions included topics about their practices and perspectives on SUP waste and waste management, what they expected to see from whom, and what could be improved (see
Supplementary Materials).
4.1. Thematic Analysis
The semi-structured stakeholder interviews were conducted to gain an empirical and comprehensive understanding of how the plastic waste problems in the food delivery system can be improved. In addition, target initiatives were reviewed and evaluated under the situational context. Through thematic analysis, the data were transcribed and coded according to the keywords and issues that showed a pattern (see
Supplementary Materials). A text analytics tool was used to capture patterns in the theme grouping process. As shown in
Table 1, codes were then processed into themes, which were categorized into four sections according to the systems thinking framework. The sections included mental models, systemic structures, patterns, and events. Frequency of responses in codes under each theme are presented as ‘score’. Similarly,
Table 2 shows the themes of each target initiative. These results were analyzed in the leverage points identification process.
The mental models’ themes revealed the insights of stakeholders, which represent the insights of the system, the reasons and motives behind sustainable and unsustainable practices. Notably, most themes were clustered at the systemic structure, which explains how the system could support or limit sustainable practices. Patterns involve themes that directly affect the rate of stock variable, which is the amount of SUP, as well as green packaging. Events pertain to the observable, current practices produced by the systems. Furthermore, it was found that stakeholders’ conversations cluster in themes 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 18. These themes were the areas that every stakeholder agreed upon.
Considering the situational context,
Table 2 shows that the no-cutlery default faces practical limitations but is easy to implement and can save restaurants’ costs. Packaging procurement is challenging due to the lack of practical packaging alternatives. Moreover, government subsidies are expected. The labelling program needs to be coupled with initiatives. Lastly, the DRS cannot be sustained by private entities alone. The system is complex and takes time to implement.
Apart from the qualitative reviews of target initiatives, stakeholders were asked to quantitatively evaluate each initiative on three criteria: expected outcome, resources required, and chance of success, on a ten-Likert scale. The average scores are presented in
Table 3. The results revealed that the initiatives that received high-expected outcome, low resource required, and a high chance of success were the no cutlery default and eco-labelling initiatives.
4.2. Qualitative System Dynamics Model (QSDM)
To acquire the QSDM, first, the problems were identified. Second, the actors and their roles in the system were comprehended. Next, the behavior and trends of the system were observed. Then, causal loop diagrams (CLDs) were constructed, reviewed, and iterated. Lastly, CLDs were integrated into the comprehensive QSDM.
4.2.1. Problem Identification
The first step of constructing QSDM is to identify problems in the system [
26,
38]. In this study, the problems that prevent the food delivery system from achieving sustainability can be identified as, first, consumers do not have enough information to make optimal decisions. Second, the price in the market does not reflect the true cost of the product, making the price of green packaging higher than its plastic alternatives. Moreover, the SUP waste problem is beyond the responsibility of a private company. Most of the sustainability programs are project-based and fail to deliver long-term results. The current systems and infrastructure are unsupportive of sustainable consumption and production. These limitations hinder sustainable consumption practices. The problem of SUP in the food delivery sector is context-specific and complex, so systematic analysis is needed to assist policy decisions. The leverage points identification process considered points that could alleviate these problems.
4.2.2. Actors and Their Role in the System
The actors in this research include, first, the plastic producers, who design and innovate plastic packaging choices. Second, the food retailers and restaurants, who create the intermediate demand for packaging. Third, the food delivery platforms, who could facilitate the supply and demand of SUPs. Fourth, the end consumers, who are faced with limited choice and are rarely able to choose packaging types. Lastly, the government, who could intervene in the system by offering incentives to influence the market into the preferred direction. In addition, the projects and initiatives developed from cooperation among the many actors, including sustainable niches, also play a role in shaping the market system. Each actor possesses different abilities, capabilities, and willingness to support greener consumption. The government sector performs a governance role by regulating the production, distribution, use, and disposal of plastic packaging. The business sector can also play a governance role through self-regulation by setting up a standard for the industry to improve the sustainable performance of the market. Business can improve the market environment in which competition among the corporates is value-driven, not profit-driven. The third sector refers to non-profit actors or civil society organizations that support sustainable initiatives. Additionally, factors involved in the system were derived from the analysis of stocks and flows, which are SUPs used in food delivery services and their journey from cradle to grave. Additionally, four target initiatives were included in the model as factors that are expected to influence the system.
4.2.3. Behavior-Over-Time Analysis
There is no official report on plastic waste generated from the food delivery service in particular. Therefore, secondary data were used to explain how variables behave over time. Several studies explore the potential long-term change in food consumption patterns influenced by COVID-19. The Boston Consulting Group [
48] confirmed the long-term behavioral shift of US consumers away from restaurant dining, which was influenced by COVID-19. In Thailand, the usage of food delivery services dropped after the government eased the lockdown measures, but remained higher than before the pandemic [
49,
50]. Liu et al. [
11] found a significant shift from eating out to online food delivery services among Thai consumers during COVID-19. Similarly, FirstCraft [
51] found peak conversation about food delivery services among Thai consumers during the lockdown. These findings point to rising trends in food delivery services and the use of SUPs, with COVID-19 as a system catalyst. The food delivery systems’ behaviors were driven by the changing market structure, which were caused by digital disruption and the government lockdown measures.
4.2.4. Causal Loop Diagram
A causal loop diagram (CLD) is the main tool in SD analysis. The CLD depicts the causal relationship between different elements in the system, which cannot be best explained in a simple linear manner, but rather in a more comprehensive loop. The causal loop diagram consists of arrows and signs, representing linkages and directions. Reinforcing loops (R) occur when change in one variable causes change in other variables in the same direction, thus reinforcing the loop. Balancing loops (B) occur when change in one variable causes change in other variables in the opposite direction, thus creating the balance of the loop. In this study, the stock variables are SUP packaging available in the market, SUP packaging stock at the restaurants, SUP stock with consumers, and SUP waste unmanaged in the environment.
To develop QSDM, each CLD was reviewed and iterated during the semi-structured interview until it gained acceptance among stakeholders. Three CLDs were presented according to the journey of stock variables, which were the amount of SUPs in the system. The first diagram shows causal linkages at the SUP production stage. The second and last diagrams represent the use stage, and the postconsumption stage. Each diagram underwent an iteration process by expert stakeholders. The final CLDs are shown in
Figure 2,
Figure 3 and
Figure 4 as follows: stock variables were framed, ‘#’ was assigned to flow variables. Four target initiatives were shaded.
At the production stage (
Figure 2), one balancing feedback loop can be identified. The availability of SUP packaging in the market, which is the stock variable, depends on the production rate. Likewise, if SUP packaging is oversupplied, the production rate needs to be slowed down. The production rate is also controlled by the cost and availability of virgin plastic, and by laws and regulations that restrict the production and use of conventional plastic packaging. However, as restaurants use more green packaging, the stock of SUP packaging in the market shrinks. The green packaging adoption rate is, in turn, reinforced by factors such as legal constraints of SUP, as well as the cost, availability, and quality of green packaging. Government subsidies, R&D, and packaging procurement initiatives directly improve the cost, availability, and quality of green packaging. Brand image can be improved through participation in a green packaging program. At this stage, it is observable that the cost and availability of green packaging is a key driver of restaurants’ green packaging adoption, which directly influences market supply and production.
- 2.
Use Stage
At the use stage (
Figure 3), one reinforcing loop can be identified. Food delivery businesses undeniably accelerate the growth of the restaurant sector as it offers new sales channels, especially amid COVID-19. Likewise, as the restaurant sector grows, demand for food delivery services increases. Restaurants’ SUP packaging stock depends on how much they can sell (growth), consumer packaging demand, and how often they reject unnecessary SUPs. Similarly, SUP stock at final consumers is determined by how frequently they order food delivery, how much they demand SUPs, and how often they reject SUPs. It is observable that environmental awareness, perceived brand image, convenience, and hygienic concerns are all underlying factors that influence the system at a mental model level through consumer demand, which directly influence stock variables. Furthermore, behavioral instruments such as incentives and nudges (default setting), as well as informative instruments such as labeling and communication can influence consumer demand and their behavior. However, while incentives reinforce brand image, disincentives may deteriorate brand image among some consumer groups.
- 3.
Postconsumption Stage
At the postconsumption stage (
Figure 4), two reinforcing loops were identified. The loop supports the circular economy concept. Postconsumption infrastructure supports the implementation of the EPR scheme, and mandatory EPR can expedite the setting of waste infrastructure. Both EPR and waste infrastructure enable DRS, which is a key enabling factor for a zero-waste business model. The zero-waste model can, in turn, expand the implementation of the DRS, as well as reduce waste in the environment. Household waste sorting rate is reinforced by green awareness, marketing and communication, regulation, and waste infrastructure. Household waste sorting rate and R&D of packaging can improve the SUP recycling rate and thus enable more waste to enter the circular system, resulting in less waste unmanaged. The zero-waste business model and the DRS can improve the brand image of the business. It can be observed that circularity can be achieved through the provision of waste systems and infrastructure, laws and regulation, R&D, and awareness raising.
4.2.5. QSDM Configuration
After the problems, actors, variables, system behaviors, and causal loops were comprehended, the QSDM was then revised and iterated through stakeholder interviews. CLDs and QSDM visualize how the systems interact. While QSDM can tell the direction of influences that occur in the system, behavior-over-time analysis allows us to depict the degree of such influences as well as the trend of the systems. According to the situational factors that instigated a change in consumption behavior, stock variables were expected to reach their peak during COVID-19, and shrink afterward. However, the stock levels after the COVID-19 situation are expected to be higher than the baseline, which was before COVID-19. When the CLDs were integrated into QSDM (
Figure 5), it was observable that the target initiatives influenced stock variables directly and indirectly. Significant mediator variables included cost, availability and quality of green packaging, consumer packaging demand, and a zero-waste business model. Government regulations and measures were assigned a more important role in steering the system. The importance of subsidies and incentives was stressed. Coordination among actors turned out to be one of the most important underlying factors in the system. Furthermore, factors that exhibited relationships across causal loops included the brand image of restaurants and food delivery platforms, green marketing and communication, and R&D on green packaging. Green marketing and communication influence the mental model, which greatly assists demand-driven sustainability. In terms of marketing implications, the brand image of restaurants and food delivery platforms can be influenced, positively or negatively, through their green actions. Likewise, R&D can improve the cost and quality of green packaging at the production stage, function and usage at the use stage, and recyclability at the postconsumption stage. Leverage points were extracted through the comprehension of this complex relationship between variables.
6. Conclusions
It can be observed that the leverage points found in this study are points that were recurrently mentioned at systemic structure level according to the systems thinking framework. Likewise, in system dynamics analysis, the leverage points exhibited several linkages with other variables, representing their power to influence the systems. To conclude, voluntary programs can only be sustained if each party receives satisfactory benefits from the change. Cost and profit are the fundamental concerns of for-profit organizations. If prices are corrected through market-based instruments, the greener choices will be those that are cheaper. The interventions allow the market system to adjust itself toward the optimum point where prices reflect the true cost of the product. In that case, the private sector will find sustainable practices profitable and carry on such practices. Furthermore, the improvement of the postconsumption waste management system is a key leverage point toward the circular economy in Thailand. EPR should be legally enforced, and the deposit return model should be widely promoted. While these policies are being developed, private entities could voluntarily apply behavioral instruments together with marketing incentives to attract restaurant partners and consumers to opt for greener choices. Moreover, partnerships are the key to systems’ accordance and alignment. New packaging solutions can be achieved through R&D. Laws, regulation, and standards should govern how packaging is produced, consumed, and discarded.
This research provides a theoretical contribution to the understanding of complex systems where economic benefits and sustainability find their balance. Overall, it contributes to Thailand’s efforts in reducing food delivery SUP waste. The case study contributes to the green growth model where the demand for corporate responsibility arises. It also provides useful insights for policy makers of other developing countries to develop measures that tackle SUP emerging from this fast-growing business in a post-COVID-19 future.