Charging for single - use disposable beverage cups: consultation analysis

4. Use of net proceeds

This chapter presents the analysis of responses to Q9, which sought views on alternative approaches to what happens to the revenue raised by the charge.

Q9: Where do you believe the funds generated from the charge should be directed?

a. to the advancement of environmental protection or improvement or for a similar purpose

b. in line with the single-use carrier bag charge – retained by business and encouraged to be donated to good causes on a voluntary basis

c. collected by local or national government

d. I don’t know

e. other, please provide as much detail as possible.

Among those who answered Q9, there was a clear preference for option a – that the funds generated should be directed to the advancement of environmental protection or improvement or for a similar purpose. This was the preferred option for 41%, compared to 12% who favoured each of option b (retained by business and encouraged to be donated to good causes on a voluntary basis) and c (collected by local or national government). A further 33% suggested another approach. However, as noted below, many of these latter respondents, especially the vending retail campaign responses, did not support the introduction of a charge.

While individuals were more likely support directing the funds raised to environmental purposes among individuals (44%), views were very mixed among organisations. A majority of organisations who answered (56%) preferred another approach, while one quarter supported option a. Organisations were more likely to support option b over option c – 14% of organisations supported option b compared to 11% of individuals, while 14% of individuals supported option c compared to 3% of organisations.

Preferences varied considerably by organisation type. Option a was preferred by both waste management organisations and 80% of environmental NGOs who answered, but not by any vending retailers, retail trade associations or quality / consumer bodies who answered. Option b (retained by business and encouraged to be donated to good causes on a voluntary basis) was favoured by 75% of retail trade associations, while option c (collected by local or national government) recorded limited support, with the highest being 13% of public sector organisations (compared to 47% of this group preferring option a).

Around one third of all respondents left a comment in response to Q9. This included virtually all of those who selected the ‘other’ option, but also a further 90 respondents who pre-empted Q9A and took the opportunity to explain why they preferred options a, b or c. When then asked Q9, just over half of all respondents left an open comment. Given the overlap between the two questions, the same coding framework was used for both to ensure consistency.

For ease of reading, this section is structured in order of reasons for a preference for options a-c (Q9A), i.e. to identify reasons for choosing to advance environmental protection or improvement (a), to be retained by retailers and encouraged to donate to causes (b), and to be collected by local or national government (c). This is followed by comments about other uses of net proceeds (Q9).

Q9A: Reasons for answering a-c

To advance environmental protection or improvement

Many respondents left comments to explain why they had chosen option a, reflecting the preference for this option in the closed question; this was also the most prevalent theme in comments. Comments included general support for this option, but where more detail was given, reasons included concerns about the climate crisis, perceptions that insufficient action is being taken to address environmental harm and that efforts to protect the environment should be prioritised.

The most prevalent suggestion for how the funds should be spent was on anti-littering or waste management services, and environmental education or research, though other specific suggestions included electric vehicle infrastructure investment, nature-based initiatives and sustainability or circular economy initiatives. One organisation suggested that the net proceeds should be used for local and verifiable environmental activities, as they felt this would mean businesses and customers would have more interest in the charge being a success and that local communities would benefit, though a few others felt a centralised fund could ensure the funds are being distributed to verified and effective projects. A small number expressed concern that “environmental protection or improvement or for a similar purpose” could be too vague and called for more detail about what this could cover.

Public education, through campaigns, sustainability initiatives or working in schools, or the need for more research and innovation in recycling, waste management, or reusable materials, were recommended by some. Such efforts were felt to help make recycling easier, increase awareness and encourage behaviour change.

“Proceeds if this goes ahead should be donated to local parks so they can have flowers and beds of plants.” - The freedom foundation

“We argue that all of the funds generated from a single-use cups charge should go to projects that are specifically tackling our excess consumption habits by encouraging more reuse, repair and sharing behaviours by consumers and wider society.” - Circular Communities Scotland

“Money raised should be used specifically for waste and litter reduction initiatives only. Environmental Projects is too wide a definition and could encompass most things in some way or other.” – Aberdeenshire Council

To be retained by retailers and encouraged to donate to causes

Explanations for choosing option b were given by many. Most frequently, some respondents felt that if this option were chosen, the administrative or financial burden on businesses should be minimised.

“Anything else would be overcomplicated. To give away the proceeds would cause issue with tax. There’s the potential for the increase to push some smaller businesses over the VAT threshold so it’s only fair they keep the proceeds and donate on a voluntary basis what they can afford.” - Forth Valley Coffee Van Ltd

Other reasons to support this option included that the model had worked for single-use carrier bags, that retailers should have a choice over where the money is distributed or that retailers may not support the scheme otherwise. A few indicated that donations from retailers should be directed at specific causes, notably environmental causes, though other suggestions included local causes or to support cultural and behavioural change.

“Retailers would welcome the ability to support good causes in their communities, a long-established tradition in local convenience stores. This could be a local hospice or sports team or local school very much deserving of support.” - The Federation of Independent Retailers.

To be collected by local or national government

Two themes emerged explaining why option c had been chosen, both mentioned by several. The most prevalent was that the money should be collected by local or national government to be diverted to environmental or waste projects specifically. Local government services mentioned in this area included street cleaning and litter collection, waste management services, installing facilities to take recyclable cups, and working with schools to raise awareness of the need to protect the environment. Two highlighted that the money should go to helping achieve Net Zero objectives.

“Funds should be collected by local government and ring-fenced for waste management services.” – Friends of the Earth Scotland

The second was that funds should be used to support the delivery of public services. This theme was raised mainly by individuals. Some felt the money should be used for local services or initiatives. Areas mentioned where the money could be used included the NHS, social care, education or disadvantaged communities while others suggested the funds could be used more generally to strengthen the public sector.

“It could buy extra beds for homeless shelters, help women running from domestic violence. Schools in Scotland are struggling to pay for full time fully educated teachers because the budget doesn’t cover permanent jobs.”- Individual

Q9: Other preferences for the use of net proceeds

Around one third of respondents, primarily individuals and vending retail campaign respondents, selected the ‘other’ response at Q9 and provided an open comment to explain why. However, the most prevalent theme was that many respondents used Q9 to reiterate their view that there should be no charge and, therefore, no proceeds to distribute (see the analysis of responses to Q2, which covers more general opposition to the charge). The vending retail campaign response reiterated their opposition to the charge and stated that: “any form of centralised collection of a cup tax (for that is what it would be) would be a totally inappropriate and unnecessary administrative burden - and ultimately cost – which would be passed on to consumers”

Beyond this, the next most prevalent themes were that the charge should not go to the retailer or supplier, that it should go to the third sector, could be used for strengthening recycling infrastructure or be returned to the customer.

Funds should not go to the retailer

Some individuals explained they chose ‘other’ to make the point that net proceeds from a charge should not go to the business levying the charge. This point was also made by many respondents at Q9A. Where reasons were given, respondents highlighted perceptions the money would not be used for good causes or would be kept by the retailer to increase their profits. A few mentioned other schemes where they believed funds had gone to retailers such as the single-use carrier bag charge and minimum unit pricing for alcohol, and expressed a view this had not benefited other causes. A small number expressed surprise on finding out from this consultation that the retailer was responsible for the proceeds raised from the single-use carrier bag charge.

“If this has to happen, then it should not be retained by business. That, like the carrier bag charge, makes the whole reason you want to do it pointless. It's not for the environment then, it's just another money-making scheme.” – Individual

Funds should go to the third sector

Funds generated by a charge should go to charities according to some, with foodbanks most mentioned. Suggestions included distributing free hot drinks at foodbanks, creating a fund that charities could apply for, and giving to cancer research or children’s charities.

“Potential that some of the funds generated from the single-use fee could create a fund that community groups/charities could apply to for funding the provision of reusable cups that would replace the single-use disposable cups in these circumstances.” - Aberdeenshire Council

Funds should be used to improve recycling infrastructure

Funds should be diverted to improve the infrastructure for recycling according to several respondents across Q9 and Q9A, with around one quarter of these comments from organisations. Suggestions from respondents included funding facilities to recycle single-use cups, funding a cup return scheme, investing in more recycling facilities, and educating and encouraging people to reuse cups. A collaborative returnable cup scheme being launched in Glasgow in January 2025 called ‘Borrow Cup’ involving 54 participating locations was highlighted by Hubbub.

The customer should receive the funds

A few individuals felt the charge should be returned to the customer when a single-use cup is returned to the business levying the charge. One suggested that an individual’s cup use could be recorded via a loyalty scheme so that people could see how much had been saved annually and then invited to choose from a list of causes they wished to donate to.

Other comments at Q9/9A

Some suggested mechanisms for distributing the net proceeds of a charge, such as using them to reduce non-domestic rates for businesses selling drinks in cups or creating a fund with a monthly draw for those on the electoral roll. A few individuals felt the local or national government should not be responsible for the net proceeds due to perceptions of a lack of transparency or the potential for the funds to be used inappropriately or wasted.