One Year of Mandatory Reusable Packaging in Germany: Opportunities and Obstacles from the Perspective of Consumers and Companies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A well written and  timely paper reporting on the scientific monitoring of a pilot project providing an  open infrastructure for reusable cups, being trialled in Mainz and Wiesbaden in Germany. The materials and methods used appear appropriate, the results are clearly stated, and the conclusions drawn are supported by the data. A  clear  weakness is the low response rate for the company surveys, but this is acknowledged well in the limitation section.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is an error in Figure 2 in the second box along, which says "Barriere", but should read "Barrier". Apart from this the paper could be published in its current form. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our paper. We appreciate your positive comments regarding the timeliness, clarity, and appropriateness of our work. Regarding your comment on the error in Figure 2, we have taken your feedback into account and corrected the term from "Barriere" to "Barrier".  

We are pleased to hear that, apart from this, the paper could be published in its current form. We have made the necessary correction and resubmitted the paper for your consideration. 

Best regards 

Klara Theobald and colleagues 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. What do takeaway catering companies perceive as the biggest challenge in promoting reusable packaging? Are there any specific solutions to address these challenges?
2. Why do you think there is a cognitive gap between businesses and consumers regarding reusable packaging? What measures can the government or other stakeholders take to narrow this gap?
3. There is a clear inconsistency between consumers' level of sustainability awareness and their acceptance of reusable packaging. What do you think are the main reasons for this inconsistency? What actions can the government or businesses take to increase consumer acceptance of reusable packaging?
4. What aspects of using reusable packaging do consumers prioritize the most? How do these factors influence their choices?
5. The article mentions some methods to address consumers' reluctance to use reusable packaging, such as increasing usage through discounts or reward programs. Do you think these methods are effective? Are there other ways to encourage consumers to use reusable packaging?
6. Takeaway catering companies and other businesses have different perspectives on promoting reusable packaging. How do you think the government or other stakeholders should reconcile these differing views to promote the widespread adoption of reusable packaging?
7. The article mentions some advantages of reusable packaging perceived by consumers, such as waste reduction and more stable containers. Do you think these advantages are sufficient to attract more consumers to use reusable packaging? Are there other benefits that may influence consumers' choices?
8. What role do you think the government should play in promoting reusable packaging? What measures can they take to support businesses and consumers in using reusable packaging?
9. Are there any ways to reduce barriers to the use of reusable packaging for consumers? What measures can the government, businesses, or other stakeholders take to improve this situation?
10. The research highlights some challenges, such as lack of consumer demand and convenient recycling methods. How do you think these challenges can be addressed through innovation or improvement?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your detailed feedback and insightful questions on our paper. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify and expand on our research.  

1. We wanted to answer this research question, but we can only do so on the basis of a small sample that is not representative. In the revision, we have included other studies that support our argument and address the issue.
2. The cognitive gap between businesses and consumers regarding reusable packaging can be attributed to differing perceptions of the primary obstacle to the adoption of reusable packaging. Businesses cite the lack of consumer demand, while consumers claim that no reusable alternatives have been offered by businesses. To bridge this gap, we suggest the government implement educational and informational campaigns tailored to both consumers and businesses, conveying the necessity of reusable packaging and providing the required knowledge.
3. The inconsistency between consumers' sustainability awareness and their acceptance of reusable packaging can be attributed to high barriers to entry and a lack of user-friendliness in existing systems, particularly regarding the return process. We recommend businesses enhance the visibility of reusable packaging options and simplify the return process, such as providing return points at various locations, independent of the distribution point. We also postulate that a significant proportion of individuals with high environmental awareness may fundamentally reject the concept of takeaway services.
4. Our survey revealed that consumers prioritize cost and incentives when choosing to use reusable packaging. Discounts, bonus points, and lower costs compared to single-use options were identified as key motivators. The design of reusable containers also influenced consumer decisions, although to a lesser extent.
5. We believe the methods outlined in our paper, such as increasing usage through discounts or reward programs, are effective in addressing consumers' reluctance to use reusable packaging. However, we acknowledge that there may be other factors to consider.
6. Promoting reusable packaging involves a variety of stakeholders, including catering companies, other businesses, governments, and consumers. To reconcile differing views and encourage widespread adoption, we suggest open dialogue, incentives for businesses, educational and awareness campaigns, and the promotion of research and development.
7. Our research did not substantiate the hypothesis that perceived benefits influence acceptance of reusable packaging. While consumers are aware of the advantages, there is no clear evidence that these advantages positively impact acceptance and actual usage.
8. We believe the government plays a pivotal role in promoting reusable packaging by establishing a legislative framework that encourages the use of reusable packaging while ensuring a degree of uniformity in its implementation. This could help circumvent confusion and enhance consumer acceptance. Furthermore, the government could provide incentives for businesses and conduct educational and awareness campaigns.
9. To reduce barriers to the use of reusable packaging, we suggest information campaigns to highlight the advantages and educate consumers on the correct use and care of reusable containers. Businesses could make reusable packaging the default option and establish easily accessible return facilities.
10. The challenges posed by a lack of consumer demand and the absence of convenient recycling methods can be addressed through innovative solutions and improvements. A comprehensive information campaign is crucial to highlight the benefits of reusable packaging. Innovations could involve the development of convenient and accessible return points and incentives such as bonus programmes.

To further substantiate our argument, we have added sources on the relevant legal framework and political strategies at European and national level in the text.  

Inspired by these developments, there is currently a certain spirit of optimism in Germany and numerous pilot projects in various cities in which a centralised reusable system is being tested. This has also been added to the text to show that the pilot project 'Reusable City Model' is not an isolated case.  

We have made minor edits to the English language in our paper as per your suggestion. Thank you once again for your time and valuable feedback. We look forward to hearing from you soon. 

Best regards, 

Klara Theobald and colleagues

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Klara Theobald’s manuscript investigated the so-called attitude-behavior gap of end consumers regarding the use of reusable packaging. Furthermore, the economic and organizational challenges of the participating catering companies and further companies involved in the value chain were revealed. The manuscript aligns well with the research direction of Sustainability. There are several problems with the content in the manuscript. The following comments would be helpful to improve the quality of this manuscript.

 

1.       If possible, some statistical analyses should be conducted to illustrate the reliability of the survey results.

2.       There are so many keywords. Could you reduce the keyword numbers?

3.       Please try specify exactly aim and derived tasks so it is visible on first sight at introduction.

4.       There is no Conclusion section. It seems that the conclusions are included in the Discussion section. I think this is not appropriate for the paper published in Sustainability.

5.       Some references should be supplemented to support the research results and enrich the content of this paper.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your detailed feedback and insightful comments on our paper. We appreciate the opportunity to improve the quality of our manuscript.  

1. Due to the limited sample size of the survey of companies (12 in the take-away sector and 14 in the other sectors), inferential statistical analysis is not a suitable approach. This is due to the low statistical significance and the potential for distortions and errors. Consequently, the data was subjected to a purely descriptive analysis. 

1. In accordance with the journal's guidelines, the number of keywords should range between 3 and 10. This has been adhered to in the revised and thematically sharpened keywords, which are as follows: Reusable Packaging, Waste Reduction, Sustainability Awareness, Consumer Behaviour, Attitude-Behaviour Gap, Value Chain 

1. We have taken your comments into account and revised the introductory section of our manuscript accordingly. The aim of the study and the tasks derived from it are now explicitly and clearly stated at the beginning of the introduction. 

1. In accordance with your recommendation, we have incorporated the conclusions into the discussion section. 

1. As part of the revision of the paper, additional references have been included.   

We are confident that these revisions have greatly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript and effectively addressed the concerns raised in your review. We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, which has undoubtedly strengthened our work. Thank you again for your time and thoughtful comments. We look forward to receiving your response. 

Best regards, 

Klara Theobald and colleagues 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- GENERAL COMMENTS:

   Although the manuscript deals with a topic relevant to the issues published in Sustainability, I do not consider it suitable for publication due to a series of questions and lack of descriptions that I pointed out throughout the writing of this opinion.

   I will consider the manuscript suitable when the authors review and better describe the methods applied for the study, as well as the processing of data that supports the results presented and, at the same time, allows future readers to understand the scope and importance of the study.

 

ABSTRACT:

Authors must provide pertinent information about the methodology used, sampling and period of data collection in this section. It is not possible to know for sure about the nature of the study nor to know whether the data are primary or secondary.

Regarding keywords, I suggest words instead of long terms. The added terms are better suited to be used as “Highlights” than “Keywords”.

 

INTRODUCTION:

This section should be revised. Mainly the sentences that seek to justify the proposed study. The statistical data presented are from questionable sources and not all are available. Furthermore, it is necessary to present the state-of-the-art regarding works and publications related to this topic, as well as the main limiting factors that prevent the implementation of preventive and corrective actions regarding the reuse of packaging and/or replacement of packaging of non-biodegradable plastic for packaging made from materials considered “eco-friendly”.

- Line 33: remove the expression ‘(p. 7)’;

- Line 55: remove the expression ‘(p. 30)’;

- Line 63: remove the expression ‘(p. 69)’;

- Lines 56-83: this paragraph should be completely redone and the references replaced. The files that the authors mention are not available on the platform, while the data provided by WWF present inconsistencies that do not allow them to reflect the reality that the authors describe in this paragraph. In this sense, it is critical to replace these references and replace them with official statistical surveys.

 

- MATERIALS AND METHODS

In general, the text needs to be improved. The description of stakeholders is confusing. The authors say that they used a questionnaire to collect the data, however, they do not present the questionnaire. Additionally, the authors do not mention whether this questionnaire was prepared by the group, or used a properly validated questionnaire for this type of data collection.

Regarding the profile of the interviewees, it is confusing to understand the stratification of the studied population.

Regarding data processing, they only mention that SPSS software was used. However, it is crucial to mention the sampling criteria, how the data was categorized (qualitative or quantitative data), data discard (outliers) and the degree of confidence in the results obtained.

 

- RESULTS

- Based on the analysis of this section, authors must rewrite the initial sentences that characterize the purpose of the study, as well as the object of study in the previous section. Furthermore, when the authors mention the characterization of businesspeople and how they fit in, it is not possible to verify whether this framing is just a perception of those who responded to the questionnaire, or whether the answer is based on the official framework of economic activity employed by the German authorities.

 

- DISCUSSION

- In this section there are many sentences that fit better in the introduction, as well as in the material and methods section. The part dedicated to discussing the data is very superficial, mainly because it describes part of the information that can be extracted in the bar graphs presented throughout the previous section. In this sense, it is fundamental that:

1) the authors better discuss the factors that may be behind the evaluated behaviors and, mainly with the use of appropriate statistical treatment (i.e.: Pareto chart), lower which(s) of the main variables and synergisms are behind the observed behavior for the sample group involving owners and the sample group involving consumers.;

2) authors must mention whether the observed results follow a normal pattern (from a statistical point of view) and compare them with behavioral studies that are already published in the literature, mainly in journals from MDPI, highlighting Sustainability, as a way of investigating whether the study, in general, portrays similar behaviors in other parts of Europe and/or the World

3) Finally, authors must describe the conclusions in a separate section, as well as study perspectives and questions that emerged from the proposed study.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

We greatly appreciate your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each point raised and revised the paper accordingly. Please find below a summary of the key revisions made in response to your feedback:  

Abstract 

Pertinent information about the methodology, sampling, and data collection period has been added to the abstract section to provide clarity on the nature and scope of the study.  

Keywords 

The keywords have been revised to align with the journal's guidelines, using concise terms instead of long phrases. The new keywords are: Reusable Packaging, Waste Reduction, Sustainability Awareness, Consumer Behavior, Attitude-Behavior Gap, Value Chain.  

Introduction 

• The introduction has undergone a comprehensive revision to strengthen the justification for the study and provide a more robust overview of the state-of-the-art literature on the topic. 

• Questionable statistical data and unavailable sources have been removed or replaced with official statistical surveys and reputable references. 

• Paragraphs highlighting the importance of reusable packaging and waste reduction have been expanded with additional statistics and references. 

Materials and Methods 

• The description of stakeholders and the stratification of the studied population has been clarified. 

• Details on the questionnaire used for data collection, including its development, validation, and administration, have been provided. 

• Information on sampling criteria, data categorization (qualitative/quantitative), outlier treatment, and the degree of confidence in the results has been included. 

Results 

• The initial sentences characterizing the purpose and object of the study have been rewritten for better clarity and precision. 

• The characterization of businesspeople and their economic activities has been aligned with the official framework employed by the German authorities. 

Discussion 

• Sentences that were better suited for the introduction or materials and methods sections have been relocated accordingly. 

• The discussion of the data has been expanded.
  

We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality and clarity of our manuscript, addressing the concerns raised in your review. We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has undoubtedly strengthened our work. 

Best regards, 

Klara Theobald and colleagues 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we would like to express our gratitude for the positive feedback and the endorsement of the publication. Based on feedback from another reviewer, we have made some minor changes to the conclusion. The changes made can be found in the coverletter and the manuscript.

Best regards 

Klara Theobald and colleagues

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we would like to express our gratitude for the positive feedback and the endorsement of the publication. Based on feedback from another reviewer, we have made some minor changes to the conclusion. The changes made can be found in the coverletter and the manuscript.

Best regards 

Klara Theobald and colleagues

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

After reviewing the manuscript, I consider that you did a good job restructuring and discussing the manuscript.

Furthermore, I will consider publication suitable as long as the "conclusion" section is revised. The paragraph between lines 432-440 will be better described at the end of the "Discussion" section.

Finally, I congratulate them on their performance in describing with the precision, justifications and references necessary to qualify the results obtained from this study.

Best Regards

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we would like to express our gratitude for the positive feedback and the endorsement of the publication. Based on your feedback, we have made some minor changes to the conclusion. The changes made can be found in the coverletter and the manuscript.

Best regards

Klara Theobald and colleagues