Environment strategy: behaviour changes needed to achieve Scotland's goals for circular economy

5. Rapid Evidence Assessment and Stakeholder Findings on Key Interventions for Driving Behaviour Change in Key Sectors

This section presents the discussion of workshop thematic findings interspersed with the interventions REA findings. An overview of the findings of the interventions REA revised to incorporate findings from the stakeholder workshop is presented in Table 10 (Appendix 2) as a matrix of circular behaviours and interventions with associated drivers and barriers. This is further systematised using COM-B & BCW frameworks (Michie et al., 2011), the MED Hierarchy (Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar, 2019) and the priority behaviours identified in the behaviours REA, and presented in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6.

The Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar Circular Behaviour Hierarchy (2019) applies well to the textiles and transport sectors as they involve durable goods. For the food sector (involving consumption of nondurable goods), prioritising behaviours along the Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar hierarchy was not possible. Instead, behaviours were divided into most prioritised (prevention) as these behaviours are sought to prevent food waste, and prioritised, as these behaviours would still contribute to circularity in the food sector, but are not focused on preventing consumption, rather advise best approaches to consumption (which is inevitable in this category).

“Positive” interventions or messaging (i.e., encouraging or emphasising benefits of a behaviour for consumers) were prioritised, although “negative” interventions or messaging were not excluded if the REA yielded evidence that these may be effectively leading to consumer uptake of prioritised behaviours.

Existing Scottish policy and initiatives that could be leveraged in achieving changes in the priority behaviours were reviewed in relation to each priority behaviour across the selected key sectors – textiles, transport and food - and also presented in the overview of the factors and interventions analysed.

The stakeholder workshop focused on the food and textiles sectors, selected from the three key sectors identified and implemented in the behaviours and interventions REAs. The transport sector was excluded to avoid overextension and optimise focus. The rationale for combining the two sectors was to reduce the bias created by the expert knowledge of the stakeholders participating i.e., each stakeholder could attend as an expert in their own field, whether textiles or food, and as a consumer when the area in which they had lower expertise was discussed.

5.1 Optimising Item Use (MED: Avoid Purchasing) in the Textiles Sector

Optimising item use in relation to textiles involves wearing one’s own clothing for longer, or ‘shopping’ in one’s own closet. This language offers a ‘positive’ messaging counterpart to simply discouraging consumers from purchasing new clothes. In terms of interventions, the REA yielded evidence that communicating to individuals about the detrimental environmental impact of clothing consumption may be effective in promoting “optimise use” behaviour and discourage purchasing of new clothing, which will be further discussed in the following intervention section. Purchasing of higher quality/more durable and sustainable clothing items is also discussed in this section as this behaviour can reduce overall clothing purchasing in the longer term since these items need to be replaced less quickly.

In terms of prioritisation, per the Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar hierarchy, optimising use or avoiding new purchases, would be the most preferrable consumer behaviour change in the textiles sector. This is also reflected in the Circularity Gap Report (Circle Economy, 2022), where encouraging a material 'sufficiency' lifestyle was stated as a high-impact cultural shift away from over-consumption to increase Scotland’s economic circularity, including in the textile sector. Reducing textile consumption would be a significant change from existing patterns of overconsumption and widespread purchasing of fast fashion. This behaviour will also require engagement with less prioritised behaviours since repairing and maintaining one’s clothing, for instance, can play a role in avoiding the need to purchase new clothing, which will also be addressed in the following sections.

Workshop participants reinforced the need for less clothing purchasing overall. Speaker 5 stated:

“I do think volume is an issue for textiles and for food.”

Speaker 5 added later:

“I guess with all of this complexity [...] I go back to the reduce. Yeah, reduce the volume. Then you're reducing the consumption and then you’re reducing the effects.”

Speaker 4 echoed these comments stating:

“[fashion brands are] still increasing volume despite all the different initiatives that exist there. That's ultimately really problematic.”

5.1.1 Intervention: Consumer Education

Educational initiatives were widely cited as a recommended intervention to encourage more sustainable clothing practices amongst consumers, including in purchasing less clothing overall (i.e., “optimising use”) (Gazzola et al., 2020; Jiminez-Fernandez et al., 2023; Soyer et al., 2021). When designing educational interventions, unethical labour practices and environmental drawbacks may be among the most compelling message points dissuading consumers from purchasing more clothing, especially fast fashion items (Granskog, 2020; Jiminez-Fernandez et al., 2023). There is evidence that awareness of the negative environmental, ethical and labour impacts of the textile industry may impact consumer decision making around clothing purchases. In a Consumer Scotland report, individuals with a high concern over climate change were less likely to purchase clothing simply to add a new item to their wardrobe. This was one of the few surveys of specifically Scottish consumers found in the REA. In the report, 37% of consumers who were “very or somewhat concerned about climate change” last purchased new clothing simply to add to their wardrobe (as opposed to due to change in weight, an existing item became unusable etc.). Amongst consumers who “are not very or not at all concerned about climate change”, 44% purchased a new item simply to add to their wardrobe meaning that environmental concern may be correlated with fewer un-needed clothing purchases (Consumer Scotland, 2024). Another Consumer Scotland report (2023) stated that only 35% of consumers “do not consider the sustainability of the clothing [they] buy”, while 42% stated that their choices are “sometimes” or “always” influenced by sustainability (35% and 7% respectively). The remaining 23% of consumers stated that they were concerned about the environmental impacts of their clothing purchases but that this does not impact their purchasing decisions. This information points to a potential baseline of awareness of sustainability in fashion amongst Scottish consumers and indicates that further education on negative effects of fast fashion may motivate consumers to purchase less clothing, especially in the “fast fashion” category, where these impacts are particularly high.

Education highlighting ethical drawbacks of textile choices in addition to environmental ones may also dissuade consumers from over purchasing textiles. REA findings state that consumers tend to take into consideration unethical labour practices used in manufacturing clothing when reporting intention to reduce clothing purchasing (Granskog, 2020; Jiminez-Fernandez et al., 2023; Riberio et al., 2023; Schiaroli et al., 2024; Joanes et al., 2020). In a 2011 report by The Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP), it is stated that “consumers think there is too little environmental information about the clothes they buy” (WRAP, 2011). More recently, a YouGov poll stated that 56% of British consumers want to know where their clothing is manufactured (YouGov, 2024). This indicates that British consumers may be broadly receptive to messaging around sustainability and origins of clothing and that there is potential for increasing information available to consumers. In investigating ways to reduce clothing consumption, Joanes et al. (2020) stated that relating clothing consumption impacts to individuals’ behaviour may be particularly effective versus stating broader sector-wide impacts. This would include communicating the environmental impact of an individual clothing item online and in-store. Eco-certifications and labels are also recommended by researchers to increase information available on clothing impacts in a way that is accessible to consumers and will be further discussed in the “eco-labels” section (Jiminez-Fernandez et al., 2023; Faludi, 2025; Ries & Rese, 2025) In terms of educational interventions within Scotland, Zero Waste Scotland (ZWS) is a prominent entity leading public education around circular economy, including around textiles. ZWS has led education campaigns in the past with messaging around the negative impact of textile waste, stating that textile waste is the most environmentally impactful type of household waste (Zero Waste Scotland, 2023). Information campaigns with online and in-person components can maximise messaging visibility and inform the public of the impacts of overconsumption (Rese & Ries, 2025). In-person events, for instance, at shopping malls and retailers aimed at encouraging consumers to shop their own wardrobes. They could also provide information on repairing and upcycling clothing and provide more visible information on the impact of clothing consumption. For instance, in 2015 ZWS, in partnership with WRAP’s UK-wide Love Your Clothes campaign, held an event at a large Edinburgh shopping centre to encourage reduction in clothing purchasing (encouraged reflection on purchasing behaviour, sharing clothing with friends, buying second-hand) (Hill, 2015). In terms of providing standardised product information, such as origins and environmental impact, the European Union’s Digital Product Passports (University of Cambridge & Wuppertal Institute, 2022) may offer a framework for doing so that may be applicable to Scotland.

Further interventions may include standardised, government-issued guidance on clothing care. The workshop participants stated that consumers often do not know how to care for clothing in a way that extends clothing life (i.e., best practices for laundering) or what the best approach is to repairing clothes. Speaker 3 stated,

“I think we need pathways basically that people can see and engage with.”

Slow fashion concepts can also contribute to an overall culture of purchasing less clothing (Vesterinen & Syrjala 2022; Castro-Lopez et al., 2021). This movement can aid in combatting fast fashion culture. There is no single definition of slow fashion. In a literature review on the concept, Vesterinen & Syrjala (2022) summarise slow fashion priorities as “fair labour, regional production, high quality, small lines and consumers thinking about the origins of the garment and engaging in long-term use of high-quality products”. Though consumption is a part of this movement, consuming higher quality, sustainable goods can have a feedback effect on acquiring less overall as these items do not need to be re-purchased as often (Vesterinen & Syrjala 2022). Slow fashion’s emphasis on local production can also be leveraged in tandem with other consumerism-reducing measures. Elli et al. (2024) for example, found that encouraging awareness of artisanship and heritage can foster sustainable clothing consumption patterns which may have additional feedback effects on reduced purchasing if consumers purchased high-quality, ethically made clothing (discussed further under ‘Minimise acquisition impact’).

Educational campaigns such as the Sustainable Living Week (SLW) 2024 carried out by the charity Keep Scotland Beautiful (KSB), with support from the Scottish Government, are further means of educating the public on circular consumption practices. The Sustainable Living Week provided a voluntary, age-segmented curricula for schools on reducing consumption, and valuing existing belongings for longer, and the impact of current consumption practices (Keep Scotland Beautiful, 2024). Such campaigns should be continued or upscaled (i.e., mandatory circular economy curricula) to foster circular behaviours in children that they may carry throughout life. Such campaigns can also be applied to other circular behaviours and could aid in normalising these behaviours overall.

5.1.2 Intervention: Financial Deterrents for Textile Purchasing

It is essential to note that the high levels of accessibility of fast fashion (it is inexpensive and widely abundant) are a barrier to uptake of anti-consumption behaviours (Jiminez-Fernandez et al., 2023; Castro-Lopez, 2021). Limiting the accessibility of fast fashion (i.e., limiting imports, making these products more expensive via additional environmental taxes) could be considered alongside consumer behaviour-focused interventions, though the former are outside the scope of the interventions REA. It is widely observed in the literature that many consumers will default to cheapest and easiest options and while the interventions here can help combat these dynamics, a higher level phasing out of fast fashion could be considered for maximal impact on overall circularity in Scotland (Jiminez-Fernandez et al., 2023; Barquete et al., 2022).

The Circular Economy and Waste Route Map to 2030 includes a commitment to publish a Product Stewardship Plan (PSP) to “tackle the environmental impact of priority products” that could be leveraged to increase the cost of purchasing textile products that harm the environment and are produced with unfair labour practices (Scottish Government, 2024). Indeed, there are plans to include textiles as a priority product in the Stewardship Plan, though currently only regarding recycling interventions and mandatory reporting of textile waste for retailers (Scottish Parliament, 2024). A potentially higher leverage intervention for preventing over-consumption of clothing would be to impose a charge on fast fashion, as was done with single-use items. The Circular Economy (Scotland) Act (CESA) gives the government the “Power to require imposition of charges for single-use items” under section 10. Though clothing items are not considered single use, a similar provision could be made for target textile items (Scottish Parliament, 2024; Scottish Government, 2024).

Workshop participants also mentioned that the retailers should limit in-store and online practices that encourage over-consumption. Speaker 3 stated that using discounts on number of items and shipping can encourage consumers to purchase more clothing than they need or intend:

“Yeah. And it's not just food and we've had a sort of creeping expansion of clothing to three for the price of two [...] things like we get delivery free if your purchase is over £100. So, you bought something for £60, and you think, oh, I'll just add something for £40. And then I'll get my £2 off delivery. You’re manipulated a lot to buy more. So, there's an assumption it’s helping the consumer, but [...] the discount is wrapped up in the price, so actually you could just sell the individual item for a fraction less [...] It's a question of how you're choosing to offer that discount.”

Workshop participants also stated that given the broad systemic problems associated with fast fashion production and proliferation, many may feel powerless in combatting this issue and do not know how to lessen the impact of their behaviours. Speaker 4 stated,

“Yeah, as a consumer, I can't do anything about the volume of clothing that's coming onto the market. It's not clear that I should be asked to deal with that so. Responsibility has to be apportioned via the power to act [...]we find [...] consumers saying, well, I don't want to act on that if other people aren't. If I see government taking action or business taking action, then fair enough, I'll take action as well.”

This indicates that concrete, visible action on the part of government to combat fast fashion’s abundance may increase willingness to engage with more sustainable practices. This paired with standardised instructions to consumers of how to engage in priority textile behaviours may also address the confusion mentioned by Speaker 4.

Leveraging extended producer responsibility policy could also encourage more responsible manufacture of clothing. Speaker 4 stated,

“[clothing brands] would have to pay higher EPR or stewardship fee if they are ticking some boxes and potentially, they get a reduction in those fees [...] there are ways you can incentivize design choices [...] do you incentivize so that things are more recyclable, for example? You can bring in other factors, [but] you might not want to bring in a million other factors and the whole price signal gets completely confused.”

5.1.3 Intervention: Enhancing Recycling Options

Given that textile waste is a significant source of waste in Scotland, exploring options for recycling existing garments may be advisable (Scottish Government, 2025). Workshop participants also anecdotally noted that there are likely large amounts of clothing in second hand retailers and in consumers’ homes that are not being worn. To explore the appetite for extending textile recycling opportunities to kerbside collection, the Scottish Government recently consulted on expanding options, including introduction of mandatory kerbside collection for recycling textiles. The results of the consultation will inform the development of the new statutory household recycling Code of Practice, if changes to the way textiles are handled is assessed to be desirable and practical. Standardised, government-led recycling efforts can ensure homogeneity and efficiency of waste management approaches. Such services may also optimise ease and therefore compliance among consumers as taking clothing to stores with textile collection services requires greater effort and planning than leaving items outside of one’s home (Charnley et al., 2024; Juanga-Labayen et al., 2022), but there is some evidence that kerbside collections can divert clothing that could be repaired and reused towards recycling, and have a negative impact on charities that rely on resalable clothing.

Workshop participants also brought up that there may be confusion or mistrust amongst consumers regarding existing clothing recycling at retailers or outdoor charity collection bins. Speaker 4 stated

“People don't really know where the stuff's going, when they put it in the textiles collection. Is that a reuse collection, is it a recycling collection? The messaging on the on the things isn’t consistent.”

Participants also mentioned the need to prevent greenwashing of clothing consumption via recycling claims. Speaker 5 stated,

“I think the challenge with recycling is we know it encourages more consumption because you think, oh, it's recycled. So that's OK we can just keep doing that. If you actually had to do something with your recycling, you’d think about it a bit more.”

Clearer messaging around recycling and further regulation of retailer claims by government may combat issues of greenwashing and bolster trust of these services and that clothing is being disposed of in a more responsible manner.

5.2 Extending Item’s Life (MED: Maintain and Repair) in the Textiles Sector

Extending an item’s life includes maintaining and caring for clothing, repairing and continuing to wear existing clothes, or repurposing and upcycling. The interventions REA found that women are overall more likely to repair clothing than men, indicating cultural gender norms around repair practices such as sewing, where women are more likely to have these skills. Older women (i.e., those born before 1966) are also more likely to engage in clothing repair than younger women or men (McQueen et al., 2022; Maguire & Fahy, 2022). The literature identified a lack of skills as a key barrier to clothing repair behaviour, especially in younger people (McQueen et al., 2022; Maguire & Fahy, 2022; Diddi & Yan, 2019). Sewing and other clothing repair skills are no longer taught in schools and young adults’ (18-24) parents may also not have clothing repair skills to teach their children (Maguire & Fahy, 2022). Papers also mentioned ‘unpaid repair’ or when people turn to friends or family members to repair clothing as a key source of repair knowledge, further indicating need for education around clothing repair skills to support this behaviour (Maguire & Fahy, 2022; Lundberg et al., 2024).

Clothing repair education in schools, making information available via online curricula for the general public, and via in-person repair cafes could facilitate this knowledge transfer (Diddi & Yan, 2019; Maguire & Fahy, 2022; McQueen et al., 2023). Scottish Government could amend school curricula, carry out further information marketing campaigns, and fund repair cafes initiatives aimed at skills transfer. Aside from provision of funding, providing best practices to these operations based on Scottish Government circular economy goals could streamline operations of these initiatives and give message cohesion to broader information campaigns (Scottish Government, 2024).

5.2.1 Intervention: Repair Skills Education

Young people are generally accepting of clothing repair and report considerable willingness to engage in repair and wear clothing even with visible repairs (Maguire & Fahy, 2022). Paired with young people’s interest in second hand clothing (discussed in the next section), repair skills can be framed as pairing with second hand clothing access, where consumers have the skill to repair, alter or upcycle second hand clothing that is damaged or does not fit. Encouraging second hand retailers to provide these services or host repair cafes could capitalise further on this dynamic. The Circular Economy Route Map to 2030 includes goals to support sharing libraries and repair cafes and increase the number of these entities 100 by 2025 (Scottish Government, 2024). More of these entities can provide additional training opportunities to consumers for repair. Zero Waste Scotland’s Circular Economy Business Support Service may be able to provide financial support to organisations promoting these skills (Find Business Support, 2023).

Maguire & Fahy (2022) also suggested framing clothing repair not within traditional associations with thrift and frugality but as “trendy, creative, revolutionary and political act of sustainability”, which may appeal more to younger consumers and bolster perceptions that minimising clothing impact has a substantive effect on the environment, an approach that could also be incorporated into Zero Waste Scotland’s messaging.

In the workshop, motivation to repair was linked with value of clothing items. Speaker 4 said,

“there's a level of repair which most people aren't going to do ...] I think you have to perceive value in that asset to be bothered to go to the repair and be willing to pay for it. That might be emotional value, financial value.”

Integrating repair-related interventions in the broader context of ‘optimise use’ interventions that foster value in clothing is a key point of potential overlap for these interventions.

Speaker 5 also mentioned that apps or online services to help streamline clothing stewardship practices such as providing information on how to launder and care for different clothing items/materials. These services could also point consumers to local repair or maintenance services, which was identified as an information gap by workshop participants. Speaker 5 stated,

“I work with a business that [is] basically a wardrobe app which connects you to different services, it is very London centric, it's connecting you to baseline ecosystem of things to help you keep your garments in use for as long as possible. But one of the things we find is you upload your wardrobe is how shocked people were about how much they have. So, [...] awareness doesn't lead to behaviour change, as there has to be an ability to change.”

The wardrobe tracking feature of such apps may also make people more aware of how many clothes they have and overall decrease perceived need or desire to purchase more clothing. More research is needed to determine how to best implement such strategies and how they influence consumers.

5.2.2 Intervention: Decreasing Tax on Repair

Maitre-Ekern and Dalhammar (2019) discussed, within the European Union context, that lowering tax on repair activities can promote this behaviour. Tax deductions for consumers who engage in repair, sharing or second-hand trading could promote these activities but does not exist within the current Scottish context. Applying such deductions on clothing items for individuals, which would likely be quite minor, may not be an impactful avenue to explore, though deductions for businesses that provide repair services may offer more impactful incentives for providing these services, make them more accessible to consumers and aid in decreasing purchases of new clothes to replace existing items due to damage.

5.3 Getting Access without Ownership (MED: Sharing & Leasing) in the Textiles Sector

Accessing clothing without ownership may involve borrowing or hiring clothing items or utilising item as a service provider. Sharing clothing with friends, family or other community members is also included. Interventions encouraging consumers to access clothing without ownership were less represented in the interventions REA than encouraging consumers to buy second hand or circular products. Barriers to accessing clothing without ownership are similar to buying clothing second hand, including concerns around safety, quality, consistency of quality (Grillo-Mendez et al., 2024; Herold & Prokop, 2023). Additional barriers are a lack of knowledge of accessing platforms and having to return clothing once used, as this is not currently a normalised step in clothing consumption (Bahl et al., 2025; Kim et al., 2021).

Grillo-Mendez et al. (2024) also found that lack of trust in these types of clothing suppliers and the potential financial burden if clothing was not satisfactory were barriers to their uptake among consumers. Concerns around hygiene and cleaning practices of previously worn garments were also highlighted by researchers (Grillo-Mendez et al., 2024; Herold & Prokop, 2023). Interventions, therefore, could focus on dispelling mistrust around rental suppliers by encouraging transparency in practices, including cleaning garments.

Workshop participants reinforced these concerns. Speaker 3 stated,

“There is an issue with perception of hygiene [...]. If you go to a charity shop, there is that worry that it may not have been dry cleaned, maybe it hasn’t been washed in a long time, maybe it’s just out of the back of someone's cupboard. So, maybe we need a little bit more opportunity for cleaning clothes?”

Addressing cleanliness of clothing items in sharing, second-hand purchasing and rental may help address this barrier to engagement with these behaviours.

5.3.1 Intervention: Education

Educational campaigns and collaborations with existing clothing rental service providers could increase transparency around areas where consumers feel they lack information, namely around cleanliness and cost savings. Entities like Zero Waste Scotland can administer such initiatives, as they have in the past. For instance, ZWS administered the Circular Textiles Fund (CTF) which ran between 2022-2024 to provide funding to organisations promoting circular economic activity in textiles. Combining such initiatives with research campaigns to further optimise and scale operations may aid in providing consumers with education and access to services that promote rental and sharing of clothing (Zero Waste Scotland, 2024; Scottish Government, 2016). This can further be facilitated by messaging collaboration between brands and public information campaigns that focus on process transparency (i.e., cleaning and repair of rented garments) and the environmental benefits of these services (Grillo-Mendez et al., 2024; Jimenez-Fernandez et al., 2023).

The Circular Economy and Waste Route Map also lays out a goal of “improving the reuse experience” for consumers via ZWS’s Revolve Reuse Knowledge Hub, which provides support to reuse businesses to improve consumer experience by ensuring legal and best practices compliance around cleanliness (2024). Such efforts may contribute to making these businesses more appealing to consumers and ‘mainstream reuse’ as is the intended goal of this service.

5.3.2 Intervention: Normalising Community Sharing of Clothing

Workshop participants stated that sharing of clothing among community members may be under-practiced. Speaker 2 stated

“As the kids grow up, there is an informal sharing that is notable. You see it at work, in schools. I was wondering how well that's understood in terms of is it significant?”

Speakers also noted that sharing of clothing most commonly exists among parents of young children who quickly outgrow clothing. They state that there is potential in expanding sharing within schools to normalise doing so regardless of family income. Workshop participants pointed out that schools could facilitate clothing sharing. If the practice were to be widespread and government-encouraged, it may dispel any stigma around used clothing as well. Speaker 1 stated,

“In some schools, [clothing swaps are] big and open, kind of everyone inclusive, but there's still schools where it's stigmatised, like OK this is for the kids who can't afford it, but in reality, it should be for everybody [...] schools are starting to have storage for like proms, because that's a really one-off occasion.”

Speaker 3 added,

“Maybe we need a single day with like a clothing amnesty, and you can have some celebrities, maybe just doing it once and just sort of trying it out”.

Workshop participants noted that models of responsible consumption in celebrities or influencers may further normalise sharing of clothing and other priority behaviours like re-using one’s own clothing or purchasing used clothing. Some papers (Faludi, 2025; Prokop & Herold, 2023; Ries & Rese, 2025) noted that social media influencers may have a positive role to play in promoting sustainable clothing behaviours, but further research is needed to better understand their impact.

5.4 Minimising Acquisition Impact (MED: Buy Second-Hand & Buy Quality) in the Textiles Sector

This behaviour category states that when consumers do acquire new clothing, items should be durable (as to not require replacement for longer) or made from circular materials (i.e., recycled or regenerative materials with minimal environmental impact in production), or second hand. Jiminez-Fernandez et al. (2023) state that awareness of circular economy principles and how they relate to clothing production and consumption is a strong driver of purchasing circular clothing items. This is however, limited by purchasing power as circular clothing items tend to be more expensive than less sustainable fast fashion items. The authors found that young people (categorised as Gen Z) tend to be more familiar with the advantages of second hand and sustainably produced clothing for environmental health and are more likely to express desire in purchasing these items than older cohorts. Many, however, are unable to do so due to lack of expendable income, indicating that awareness of benefits of circular clothing may not translate to purchasing of these items due to higher cost (Faludi, 2025; Jimenez-Fernandez et al., 2023).

Another essential consideration regarding circularity of clothing consumption is that imported clothing, even if high-quality and durable, may not be considered circular depending on production techniques abroad. As emphasised in the behaviours REA, maximising local clothing consumption, whether new or used, is preferable to importing clothing because of lowered impact of transport. The Circularity Gap report (Circle Economy, 2022) notes that overall, Scotland is heavily import-reliant and would only be able to achieve a circularity metric of 11.8% under current consumption patterns.

Workshop participants noted, however, that overall volume of purchasing should be decreased, including second-hand clothing. Speaker 5 stated

“One of the challenges there is right now, there's a lot of second-hand volume consumption. So, it's like fast fashion second hand, but it's not necessarily circulating around, people are buying, knowing that they can sell on, so they're feeding into that system, but not necessarily closing the loop on that system”.

Workshop participant also noted that much of the clothing in charity shops, for instance, is previous fast fashion purchases that were low quality when new. To decrease overall clothing in circulation, Speaker 5 proposed that

“donors become purchasers and kind of close the loop.”

This suggest that when designing interventions to encourage second-hand purchasing, excess consumerism in second-hand goods must be considered alongside the benefits of purchasing second-hand.

5.4.1 Intervention: Expanding Second-Hand/Rental Organisation Capacity

An intervention brought up in the workshop that was not reflected in the interventions REA was expanding the capacity of organisations to deal with second-hand or rented clothing. Space was mentioned as a key limiting factor to sorting clothing and performing second hand retail operations. Speaker 2 stated,

“I'm just thinking about the space itself, because that's often where the big barriers is the actual physical premises. Some kind of committed subsidy.”

Participants also mentioned that performing a council-based audit of unused space and subsidies for additional space to perform textile sorting operations would support these organisations’ operations. Speaker 5 stated,

“At the moment, charities are mega conservative because they can't afford to [...] try more sustainable models, it’s really tough. Every square inch of their sales space is monetized”.

5.4.2 Intervention: Education and Eco-labels

Given the cost-related barriers to purchasing durable or circular clothing, interventions may need to either persuade customers to spend more on durable or circular clothing or lower their cost. In terms of making circular fashion more appealing despite higher prices, standardised eco-labels, or circularity labels endorsed by, for example, Digital Product Passports, could bolster trust that products are indeed circular and held to a regulation-backed standard (Jiminez-Fernandez et al. 2023; Faludi, 2025; Macguire & Fahy, 2023). They may also aid in educating consumers about circular economy and its benefits and provide incentives for companies to use eco-labels and comply with eco-label standards since these products may be more appealing to consumers (Jiminez-Fernandez et al., 2023) These papers emphasise, however, that more research is needed on the efficacy of eco-labels and in which situations they are most effective. Scottish Government could investigate developing standardised certification and labelling approaches, this could establish evidence-based and trusted frameworks for strategically increasing transparency and educating the public on clothing sustainability (Scottish Government, 2024; Scottish Parliament, 2024).

Communication strategies with in-person and online components about circular economy could maximise reaching a wide consumer base and include social media, web page, radio, and television content (Gazzola et al., 2020; Vehmas et al., 2018). Product and process showcases can aid in educating consumers on sustainable production approaches in a highly transparent and engaging manner (Elli et al., 2024; Vehmas et al., 2018). Educational campaigns around the safety and sustainability of second-hand clothing could be prioritised given that hygiene concerns were stated as a barrier to consumer purchasing of second-hand clothing. It is also key to note that that women, especially young women with higher education qualifications, are more likely to participate in CE around textiles than older individuals, men, or those with less education (Gazzola et al., 2020; Jimenez-Fernandez et al., 2023). Targeting populations less likely to engage with circular economy will therefore be crucial and further research is needed on how different demographics may engage with second-hand/sustainable clothing purchasing.

Awareness of the benefits of circular economy was also correlated with purchasing circular clothing in some studies. Supply chain transparency and educating consumers about how circular clothing is manufactured was also found to increase consumer trust in circular clothing products (Jimenez-Fernandez et al., 2023; Patwary et al., 2023; Sharma & Foropon, 2019; Vehmas et al., 2018). Sharma and Foropon (2019) found that within the Theory of Planned Behaviour high levels of perceived consumer effectiveness around the positive impact of sustainably produced clothing was statistically significantly correlated with intent to purchase a circular or green product. This means that messaging that communicates the benefits to environmental impact of circular production could be a prioritised messaging strategy.

The need to assure consumers of the quality of clothing purchases was also brought up in the workshop. Speaker 4 stated,

“there's definitely a slice of the market that would […] pay more if they were confident it's going to last longer, like there is a market for quality, but it's very hard as a consumer to know if you're just being charged more or if that extra money is for a better quality item that's really going to last for 10 years.”

Speaker 4 also suggested a “scorecard” communicating the quality and durability of an item. They raised questions, however, about the implementation of such a measure (“How do you judge that for the next steps? How do you regulate that?”) While rating for durability did not arise in the REA, Speaker 4’s point suggests a possible additional educational tool for consumers around quality, but further research needed on implementation of this kind of measure. Further investigation is also needed in how to best integrate eco-labels to promote priority consumer behaviours.

5.4.3 Intervention: Enhancing Production-End Strategies

Some papers stated that greater innovation in circular production methods and normalisation of consumption of circular products would lead to more cost-effective manufacturing methods and technologies, more revalorisation opportunities of recycled materials; this, in turn, may create greater availability and affordability of sustainable fashion items (Jiminez-Fernandez et al., 2023; Faludi, 2025; Riberio et al., 2023). Specific interventions at the manufacturer and retail level that contribute to affordability are beyond the scope of the interventions REA, but greater demand from consumers may lead to expansion of these businesses and more investment in this area. Jimenez-Fernandez et al. (2023) noted that governments could increase overall production of circular clothing by incentivising more circular production methods via grants, or dis-incentivise highly polluting, fast-fashion methods via regulation and taxes, which may warrant further research in the Scottish context.

Table 4^[6] presents a matrix of circular behaviours and interventions with associated drivers and barriers in the textiles sector. The current policies together with identified gaps in the Scottish context are listed in the table summarising the related discussion in sections 5.1-5.4.

Table 4: Literature & stakeholder evidence-based overview of factors & interventions – textiles

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm (MED) categories: Optimise item use / MED: Avoid

Priority Behaviour:

Wear your own clothes for longer

COM-B Factors*:

O: Fashion cultural norms

O: Access to low price clothing

M: Valuing clothing items

BCW Intervention Functions**:

E: Education, definitions (slow vs fast fashion)

T: Access to clothing stewardship services

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

C/M: ZWS & KSB campaigns

F: CTF funding

SP: CCS repair workshops

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

G: PSP (priority status for textiles)

L: CESA Section 10 (fast fashion charges), EPR

SP & F: Tax deductions on repair services

R: Limit sales/ promotions

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm (MED) categories:

Get access without ownership / MED: Share & Lease

Priority Behaviour: Share / borrow / rent item (locally)

COM-B Factors*:

M: Safety, quality, consistency of quality perceptions

O: Clothing space; low quality unreparable fast fashion, trends in second-hand market

BCW Intervention Functions**:

E: Hygiene information

M: Brand messages

ER: Fund circularity-promoting businesses, community zero-waste hubs

E: Emphasise space-saving benefits, target occasion wear

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

SP: Share & Repair Network

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

F: Tax deductions for repair/ reuse services

C/M: Curriculum for clothing stewardship

R: Product passports, RRKH, eco-labels

F: Remove VAT on second-hand clothing purchases

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm (MED) categories:

Extend items life / MED: Maintain and Repair

Priority Behaviour:

Maintain and care for clothing

Repurpose and upcycle (self or locally)

COM-B Factors*:

M: Gender/ age-related norms around clothing care

R: Repair skills

BCW Intervention Functions**:

E & T: School home economics, online clothing repair guides

M/E: In-person repair cafés

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

SP: Share & Repair Network

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

F: Tax deductions for repair/ reuse services

C/M: Curriculum for clothing stewardship

R: Product passports, RRKH, eco-labels

F: Remove VAT on second-hand clothing purchases

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm (MED) categories:

Minimise acquisition impact / MED: Buy Second-Hand & Buy Quality

Priority Behaviour:

Buy second hand

Buy durable items

Buy items made from circular materials

COM-B Factors*:

O: Age related trends in sustainable behaviour

M: Preferences for quality, durable clothing

O: Price of quality clothing

BCW Intervention Functions**:

E & P: Campaigns on trendy, creative, safe, sustainable second-hand clothing, circular fashion

F: Cost savings information on buying durable clothing

ER: Eco-labelling, innovative circular incentivisation schemes

M/E: Brand campaigns on circularity

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

SP: Share & Repair Network

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

F: Tax deductions for repair/ reuse services

C/M: Curriculum for clothing stewardship

R: Product passports, RRKH, eco-labels

F: Remove VAT on second-hand clothing purchases

5.5 Minimising Acquisition Impact (Prioritised) in the Food Sector

Priority behaviours for minimising acquisition impact include buying a higher proportion of plant-based foods, such as beans, lentils, and buying food from recirculated materials, or “upcycled” foods. This behaviour is less prioritised than behaviours around avoiding food waste from occurring in the first place, which is the aim of the “optimise use” behaviour category in the next section. Some papers referred to foods made from revalorised materials as ‘circular foods’ since they aid in reducing the amount of food that would otherwise go to waste, such as peels or other food by-products or inedible components (Aschemann-Witzel & Stangherlin, 2021; Chiaraluce, 2024). Consumers were generally amenable to consuming more alternative proteins when surveyed, though “baby boomers” and older cohorts tended to be the least willing to change their diets (Brandner et al., 2022; Fox et al., 2023). In a cross-sectional survey conducted in the UK on the readiness of consumers to adopt an environmentally sustainable diets, at least 50% of participants perceived a high environmental benefit to plant-based eating and reported already increasing their plant-based intake. This indicates many consumers likely have some awareness of the benefits of plant-based eating, as well as general awareness of its sustainability compared to meat, which can be built upon to further encourage this behaviour (Culliford & Bradbury, 2020).

5.5.1 Intervention: Consumer Education

To encourage consumers to purchase lower-impact protein sources, educational and public awareness messaging around diet should target factors that most influence consumer choices, which the literature indicated may be primarily price, taste, and health considerations (Fox et al., 2023; van Bussel et al., 2022). As price was noted as an important consideration for consumers when purchasing food, the affordability of plant-based foods such as dried legumes, which are much less expensive compared to meat, could be emphasised to consumers to make these products more appealing (Fox et al., 2023; Schanes et al., 2018; Bussel et al., 2022). In a systematic review of papers investigating consumer perceptions of food-related sustainability, Bussel et al. (2022) found that consumers tended to associate “sustainability” in food with higher prices and more inconvenience. The authors, however, referenced a study (Donati et al., 2016) that modelled sustainability of different diets in an Italian context and found that sustainable diets were not necessarily more expensive.

Presenting consumers with information on the relative affordability of more sustainable choices specific to Scotland may compel consumers to shift to more plant-based eating and dispel negative perceptions of sustainable diets that may exist.

Legislation such as the Good Food Nation (GFN) (Scotland) Bill could be used to establish standardised and evidence-based recommendations for greater plant consumption and to communicate its benefits. The Plant-Based Food Alliance published a document on how this bill can more intentionally support the production and uptake of plant-based foods, though interventions discussed were not consumer-focused but point to upstream interventions that can help promote this behaviour (i.e., via subsidies for farmers producing crops for direct human consumption) (Plant-Based Food Alliance, n.d.). The GFN Bill could also provide a policy basis for creating trustworthy and standardised recommendations for consumers around plant-based eating, including around affordability, health impacts and sustainability impacts of food choices. The GFN Plan document also mentions collaboration with the UK government Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP), which facilitates data collection and sharing amongst UK food supply chain stakeholders (government, industry, academics/researchers). FDTP data could inform educational efforts so that they are aligned with UK and Scottish government policy along the whole food supply chain and overall health and sustainability goals. The FDTP contains a Health Working Group, which is tasked with developing ways for companies to voluntarily communicate health information on their products. This working group may provide an avenue to create a standardised approach to communicating health information about plant-based eating to consumers. Addressing issues of taste are more complex, since tastes are often formed over the course of one’s life and can have highly personal and cultural dimensions (Fox et al., 2023). Since some consumers may also lack knowledge in how to most effectively prepare legumes or other plant-based foods to be sufficiently palatable, education could include information on how to prepare these foods. A lack of knowledge amongst consumers around preparing unfamiliar plant-based foods, such as legumes was observed in the REA literature (Aschemann-Witzel & Stangherlin, 2021; Brandner et al., 2022; Fox et al., 2023; Hellali, 2023).

In line with promoting positive rather than negative or restrictive approaches, alternative protein consumption can be encouraged without messaging focused on reducing meat consumption. For instance, meat products that include a higher proportion of legumes or vegetables can aid in decreasing overall meat consumption without eliminating it all together. Workshop participants pointed to products such as a vegetable and meat mince that could be promoted alongside purely plant-based items that may have barriers to consumption such as taste or familiarity.

Speaker 4 stated,

“They came up with a mince mix that was meat and veg and it was a cost saving thing. It was sold as such to the customer, like this is cheaper. I think that that's also massive environmental gain, you know, shepherd's pie doesn’t have to be 100% meat mince. It's probably healthier to do it this way, so I do think something like that where it’s not just the consumer making a change.”

This highlights that cost-saving messaging available in addition to environmental messaging. Speaker 4’s example of a vegetable and meat mince also offsets responsibility for reducing meat consumption from consumer to retailers.

There is also evidence that messaging around local origins of food and its lower environmental impact, coupled with standardised certification systems can make circular foods more appealing. Certifications in particular can aid in boosting transparency around food production systems and clarify positive impacts of foods on environment, or what negative impacts are mitigated (Frehner et al., 2022). Providing best practices on certifications and recommendations could also be integrated into the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill. Cultural relevance and local food culture is key and could be capitalised by educational campaigns (Fox et al., 2023; Bussel et al., 2022). For instance, Culliford & Bradbury’s (2020) cross-sectional survey of UK consumers indicated that baked beans were one of the most widely consumed plant-based foods in the country. Highlighting local or culturally relevant options that may appeal to a wider base of consumers, especially those that are older, would also be advisable.

5.5.2 Intervention: Increasing Transparency

Regarding upcycled foods from food waste, a key barrier to consumer willingness to try these foods includes concerns over safety of these foods and a lack of understanding of production processes. Improved messaging around safety, greater transparency around production, and information on the benefits of upcycled food products could aid in overcoming these barriers (Cela et al., 2024; Chiaraluce, 2024; Hellali, 2023). Government-led educational campaigns in collaboration with brands and retailers could be one means of doing so and bridge the communication gap between this industry and consumers. Entities like ZWS could also provide support to businesses producing these food products, as was done with Revolve Reuse Knowledge Hubs for textile reuse organisations.

5.6 Optimising Item Use (Most Prioritised) in the Food Sector

This category included the behaviours ‘use up leftover food’, ‘shop from your own cupboards and fridge first’ and ‘make a food plan and sticking to it’. In terms of prioritisation, ‘optimising item use’ is the most prioritised of the food sector behaviours as it is the most upstream prevention measure for preventing food waste. It is also highly impact since household food waste contributes the greatest proportion of overall food wasted in the Scotland, 59% according to Zero Waste Scotland (Zero Waste Scotland, 2024b). There is some overlap with another prioritised behaviour, ‘extend working life of food items’ though the latter exclusively concerns storage, whereas optimise use involves earlier stages of consumers’ engagement with acquired food such as food purchasing, time management skills, and managing other household dynamics such as differing schedules and food preferences of household members.

The workshop and the interventions REA made clear that drivers and barriers to behaviours in this category are complex and dependent on various cultural, temporal and household-specific factors. In a systematic review of household food waste practice research, Shanes et al. (2018) found that intention to avoid food waste is correlated with reduction in food waste, but when factors such as planning and shopping routines are integrated into modelling, the connection is much weaker or not present, indicating that consumers find these behaviours particularly challenging to practice and that there are other factors influencing waste behaviour that are not related to intention. The authors suggested external factors such as “sequences of daily activities around food in households and the social and material contexts of food practices” are likely influences on food waste behaviour. Theory of social practice-based approaches were proposed to address these issues to account for broader socio-temporal factors as well as psychological influences on household food management practices (Shanes et al., 2018; Stefan et al., 2013).

The social complexities of influencing household food usage behaviours were reinforced extensively throughout the workshop. Speaker 5 stated,

“A particular challenge [is] food is social because so much of our habits embedded in a social context.”

Speaker 4 echoed this point, stating,

“I think the food is really interesting to think about [in terms of the] different role people are playing [such as] cook or parent. You're eating food. You're purchasing food. You're all of these different contexts [...] you've got a different hat on, and you're not really thinking about food waste […]. You think about food waste when you get to the end of the process. It's left on the plate, or it's gone off”.

Speaker 4’s quote illustrates the variety of factors that can make it difficult to prevent food waste, such as parenting responsibilities. Addressing these complex influences in the Scottish context will be discussed in the following interventions sections.

‘Buying tinned, frozen, preserved food that will store well’ is another set of behaviours in this category highlighted in the behaviours REA. These types of food are less likely to spoil than fresh foods though preferences for these types of foods vary among consumers (Mallinson et al., 2016). Tinned food in particular experiences some stigma in the UK, which will be addressed in discussed interventions (Zero Waste Scotland, n.d.).

5.6.1 Intervention: Further Research on Household Food Management Dynamics

As stated, the need for a broader cultural and systems-based approach for tackling food waste in households is reinforced by the interventions REA and the workshop. As reflected in the literature (Casonato et al., 2023; Etim et al., 2024; Shanes et al., 2018) and noted by workshop participants, food management behaviour requires a combination of time, effort and skills that may not be available to consumers because of much broader socio-cultural dynamics., 2023; Etim et al., 2024; Shanes et al., 2018). It is difficult to generalise about how these factors interact to influence household food management and therefore determine most effective interventions. The interventions REA and workshop participants recommended further research into the broader societal factors that influence household food waste and management behaviours. Shanes et al. (2018) state that “it is hardly possible to single out any socio-demographic factor(s) as explanatory variable(s) for food waste generation”.

Participants agreed that targeting household behaviours around food management would be challenging. Speaker 4 stated,

“The behaviour is so nuanced or so context dependent that actually it is a bit tricky to work out what the what kind of stick or carrot path needs to be.”

Some drivers of food waste and poor food management that it may be possible to observe more generally in households appeared in the interventions REA and workshop. Insufficient time to properly manage food is a likely driver of food waste (Mallinson et al., 2016; Secondi et al., 2015; Schanes et al., 2018; Hartikanen et al., 2025). Speaker 2 reinforced Schanes et al.’s (2018) discussion of socio-temporal factors related to food management stating,

“Temporal profiling is important.... We need to understand the context of people, both physical, social, individual and temporal, that temporal one, it's really complex. How do you kind of get a sense of what the patterns are of someone on one day at the weekend with someone else in a particular place?”

Speaker 4 also stated,

“When people were time poor was a real factor [in food waste prevention]”.

Workshop participants suggested condensed work schedules to give individuals more time for food management activities but emphasised that additional interventions, like educational campaigns, will be needed to ensure time is used in a way that reduces food waste Speaker 4 made this point, stating,

“[…] you would still want to be doing the softer communications-based tool based things around food waste. Because otherwise, people won't necessarily be using that time in a way to be helpful.”

Speaker 4 summarised other potential interventions, stating,

“I do think to take that food waste example in home there are lots of soft things you can do that kind of help and kind of nudge people in the right direction, whether that's information provision or tools to measure out portions. [...] I think an interesting one now would be the kind of apps that might help you with kitchen management and stock management and could you automate some of that?”

This quote emphasised the multi-pronged approach that may need to be taken to reduce household food waste. Zero Waste Scotland has provided guides on household food management (Zero Waste Scotland, 2025). It may be advisable to explore ways to make this information more visible. Retailers may be key entities where information on food waste management strategies could be displayed in a way that influences consumer choices, but more research is needed and is discussed in the section “Education on Food Management Best Practices” (Goss et al.,2025; Pimentel et al., 2022). Outside of education, research on how emerging AI tools can best be developed to minimise food waste could also be considered to determine most effective interventions, as these tools were also mentioned in the workshop.

“You scan the QR code […] and then you kept track of what it says, did you know this is going to go out of date in two days’ time […] a much more integrated way of managing your kitchen with [AI] help nowadays.”

5.6.2 Retail-Level Interventions

Other external factors that influence consumer consumption include bulk provisioning at large retailers, which should be carefully considered as this can contribute to food waste and ineffective food management at home (Shanes et al., 2018; Goss et al., 2025). In the workshop, speaker 5 stated,

“I think the volume is still happening and the role of supermarkets, people are buying more volume maybe because of bulk sizes or offers.”

On how bulk buying can interact with other household dynamics to increase food waste, Speaker 1 also said,

“The leftovers [may not be] a consequence for [households], because it actually costs them less money to buy it in the bulk.”

There is evidence that food waste may be highest among individuals who exclusively shop at large supermarkets as it is more difficult to customise quantities of food items purchased if they are pre-packaged, whereas at smaller shops or markets with loose food products, individuals can purchase only how much they need. Targeting large retailers with rules around bulk options or encouraging (or requiring) providing smaller packaging options, may help address this source of waste (Shanes et al., 2018).

Speaker 4 stated a similar point about the role retailers could play in preventing food waste, for instance via considering how practices like discounted “meal deals” that require purchase of more items than an individual may need:

“One of the things that most annoys me is when you buy a sandwich [..] and do the meal deal, that it's cheaper if you have the drink but that cannot be economically true. You are literally encouraging over consumption, probably waste.”

Speaker 4 added that further research in how the retail space influences consumers in a variety of settings is needed (i.e., rural vs. urban, families vs. single people):

“[…] bulk shop is becoming less prevalent. I don't know how the online sales are really affecting that, but certainly there's a demographic thing where it might be more urban dwellers. You don't have a car. You're doing more of a top up shop. [...] Is that more expensive for you, net? I don't know.”

Investigating the intersection between location, demographics, the retail space and affordability may be particularly helpful in determining best interventions at the retail level.

Overall, shifting responsibility to retailers to provide consumers with sustainable options and a shopping environment that encourages optimal management of food waste was also discussed as key in the workshop. Workshop participants noted that consumers may have difficulty in navigating choices without clear messaging about what they should be purchasing.

Speaker 4 stated how difficult it can be to make optimally sustainable choices in current retail environments:

“At the moment I don't think we know [what is most sustainable] and you know I work for an environmental consultancy and I would struggle to go around the supermarket and tell you the relative carbon footprint of all those products, even in broad terms".

5.6.3 Intervention: Education on Food Management Best Practices

The interventions REA and workshop reinforced that educational (or ‘soft’ measures) can help encourage optimising use in households when paired with retailer-based interventions (Goss et al.,2025; Pimentel et al., 2022). In terms of educational capacity, the Scottish government and broader UK has a considerable network of public information campaigns around food waste reduction. WRAP and Zero Waste Scotland, for instance have engaged with various food supply chain actors to collect quantitative data around food waste and increase awareness of this issue amongst various stakeholders, including consumers (WRAP 2023; WRAP 2024; Zero Waste Scotland, 2016). The “Love Food Hate Waste” campaign for reducing food waste is regarded as one of the most successful of its kind in terms of raising awareness of this issue (WRAP, 2023). Building upon existing efforts could aid in further raising awareness and reducing food waste among households.

Establishing best practices for purchasing and managing food that is consistent with nutritional and environmental messaging could be a highly impactful intervention that addresses a key knowledge gap identified in the workshop.

Speaker 4 summarised this gap, stating:

“It's buying the right amount [and] for you to know how you're going to use it over the next five-day period. How you actually manage and store it [...] So, you've got this journey, but you get any bit of that wrong. You are going to end up with food waste.”

This indicates that it may be advisable to explore trade-offs between purchasing fruits and vegetables, for instance, and ready-made food to make evidence-based recommendations for consumers that can aid in reducing waste.

It is key to note that food management techniques such as using grocery lists and checking stocks before shopping are habit-based behaviours that may be difficult to change (Fox et al., 2023). There is a complex interaction between food skills and planning that also warrants further study in the Scottish context and is not currently considered by the Circular Economy and Waste Route Map. For instance, a consultation document with industry stakeholders (Scottish Government, 2024) did not mention the social practice-based dynamics that may affect food waste behaviours, but the findings of this REA and workshop suggest that this could be an area of research under the data gathering related goals laid out by the Route Map. Zero Waste Scotland’s ‘Can-paign’ is a key example of an educational campaign with messaging that targets key considerations around food habits indicated in the interventions REA (cost, taste and health) (Fox et al., 2023). The campaign emphasised the cost efficacy of tinned food as well as the benefits of mitigated waste and addressed stigma around canned vegetables (CAN-Cel Food Waste | Zero Waste Scotland, n.d.).

Educational measures such as those mentioned can be enhanced via collaboration with brands and retailers to communicate information in-store and on packaging. In-store workshops, for instance can impart these skills. Existing relationships between Zero Waste Scotland and retailers can be leveraged to carry out such initiatives. Targeted research into ‘intelligent’ or upgraded packaging beyond traditional canning, freezing, and pickling, may also be advisable as there is evidence they aid in reducing food waste within households (Bussel et al., 2022; Hellali et al., 2023; Fox et al., 2023).

5.6.4 Economic Interventions

Economic interventions that may reduce waste amongst consumers are Pay-as-you-Throw schemes (PAYT), which have been found to be effective in some contexts, but more research is needed to determine efficacy, best approaches to implementation and applicability in Scotland (Schanes et al., 2018; Eunomia Research & Consulting, 2021).

Funding Public Canteens

Subsidising workplace and public canteens may also contribute to reduced food waste, as food management responsibility is shifted away for consumers for meals consumed at canteens (Schanes et al., 2018). There is a history of low-cost public canteens in Scotland. Nourish Scotland has conducted research on this topic (‘Public Diners’, n.d.). Further assessment of potential benefits of public canteens could lead to a revival of this approach to food consumption, which the Scottish Government, entities such as ZWS and Nourish could collaboratively investigate (Nourish Scotland, 2024). In the workshop, Speaker 5 also brought up public canteens when discussing that shared meals may help decrease food waste

“Community diners could be helpful”.

Public Procurement and Transparency

Workshop participants mentioned that if public entities model transparency in their waste mitigation strategies, then consumers may be more likely to follow suit in their own homes. In 2021, The Lancet published a comment stating that public procurement efforts could bolster sustainable production efforts and increase viability of sustainable food systems (Swensson et al., 2021). The EU is also developing policy for sustainable public food procurement as part of overall food system change (European Commission, 2024). Further research is needed to determine how public procurement can shape household behaviour.

Speaker 4 stated,

“Your food experience is shaped by what you see in those other things. So, think about menu choices. If you think about portion sizes. If you think about social expectations around food and [...] the environment and school, you get that from other places. So, I think those are like modelling or demonstrating more sustainable behaviours is actually quite an interesting thing.”

5.7 Extending Working Life of Item (Prioritised) in the Food Sector

The ‘extend working life of items’ behaviour category included encouraging consumers to freeze, dry, and preserve products that cannot be used in time, storing food correctly, checking fridge and freezer temperature to ensure products meet shelf life. This behaviour category somewhat resembles “optimise use” behaviours in that both have strong skill and knowledge components, and interventions may be similar for both. Researchers such as Fox et al. (2023) and Shanes et al., (2018) discussed these behaviours in tandem, at times, for this reason.

5.7.1 Intervention: Consumer Education

Workshops and education events at food retailers, markets or zero waste hubs could educate consumers on tips on how to perform these behaviours. Practices like pickling may be more difficult to convince consumers to engage in, as there is considerable time commitments needed in performing these activities, and concerns over food safety (Fox et al., 2023). Educational material could be made available for consumers who are interested, and some may be persuaded to try preservation techniques aside from freezing if presented with their benefits, especially around cost savings (Frehner et al., 2022; O’Neill et al., n.d.; Schanes et al., 2018).

Workshop participants mentioned that community-based, in-person educational initiatives have also been effective in the past in imparting knowledge around these behaviours and their benefits.

Speaker 4 stated

“Actually, I think the levers that you can pull in someone's kitchen to get them to do something different are very thin on the ground and I think that remains a policy challenge. I think where it's worked well, it's generally been like we have one to one engagement, you know by kind of social community group. And I'm sure that works, but obviously super intensive.”

In-person strategies for educating consumers on food waste-prevention habits, such as door-to-door campaigning and cascade training may also be effective in educating consumers on food waste mitigation, as was stated in a 2017 report on lessons learned from WRAP’s “Love Food Hate Waste Campaign” (WRAP, 2017).

5.7.2 Intervention: Promoting Food Redistribution

Finally, ‘sharing any excess food locally with friends/family/neighbours’ could be facilitated by local councils, as well as existing zero-waste cafes. There is a robust redistribution network for food that would otherwise go to waste in Scotland and the broader UK (WRAP 2023c; Scottish Government, 2024). Evidence on sharing food with friend and family was limited. Local community groups could aid in making this a more common practice, though concerns around food safety would have to be addressed. Further research into casual food sharing may help assess drivers and barriers to this activity, and its potential impact on food waste as this is not currently clear (WRAP 2016). Workshop participants mentioned that food redistribution efforts, both formal, overseen by charities, and informal (e.g., amongst neighbours) could aid in reducing food waste but that these outlets for food should not perpetuate overconsumption of food.

Speaker 5 stated,

“Unfortunately, we’re producing a lot of food waste and then that's going to surplus to community groups through FareShare. I mean we have a system where we've got people who are accessing surplus food through food banks and community organizations but actually, we should be addressing that volume issue for both of the contexts”.

Interventions around reducing food waste, therefore should prioritise food waste further downstream (i.e., in people’s homes) and use food redistribution as a last resort, as per the waste hierarchy (Papargyropoulou et al., 2014; DEFRA, 2024).

Table 5^[7] presents a matrix of circular behaviours and interventions with associated drivers and barriers in the food sector. The current policies together with identified gaps in the Scottish context are listed in the table summarising the related discussion in sections 5.5-5.7.

Table 5: Literature & stakeholder evidence-based overview of factors & interventions – food

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm (MED) categories:

Minimise acquisition impact / Prioritised

Priority Behaviour:

Buy more plant-based protein foods

Buy foods from recirculated materials

COM-B Factors*:

M: Age related perceptions of environmental benefits of plant-based eating

M: Cultural preferences for carnivore diets

C: Cooking skills

M: Upcycled foods safety concerns

BCW Intervention Functions**:

E: Campaigns on plant-based foods benefits, cooking, circular production

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

C/M: ZWS campaigns

G & C/M: GFN Plan, Food Waste Reduction Action Plan

G & L & R & SP: Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP)

G & L & R & SP: FDTP Health Working Group

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

C/M: Refine campaign approaches based on further research in Scotland (e.g., further gauge barriers)

G & C/M: Further educate on benefits of plant-based foods (cost, environmental, health, taste)

G & C/M: Leverage FDTP & Health Working Group to create standardised recommendations for plant-based eating; communicate benefits

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm (MED) categories:

Optimise item / Prioritised

Priority Behaviour:

Buy tinned, frozen, preserved food

Use up leftover food

Shop from own cupboards/ fridge first

Make food plan and stick to it

Freeze/ dry/ preserve food

COM-B Factors*:

M: Stigma perceptions of canned foods

C: Cooking skills

C & O & M: Complex behavioural and structural factors around food planning

BCW Intervention Functions**:

E: Emphasise cost efficacy

E & T: Recipe labelling & cooking skills sharing

E: Environmental and food/packaging waste campaigns

P: Encourage local & low package shopping

R: Packaging restrictions

C: Pay-As-You-Throw schemes

ER: Public canteens

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

C/M: ZWS CAN-paign

L: Good Food Nation Act, packaging legislation

G & C/M: Food Standards Scotland toolkits, SFN Plan, Food Waste Reduction Action Plan

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

G & SP: Further research on promoting behaviour

F: Explore applicability of Pay-As-You-Throw schemes in Scotland

G & SP: Further research on socio-temporal factors affecting household food management

G & SP: Further research on how food retail environment (e.g., advertising, packaging) impacts household food management

SP: Explore how public canteens may reduce food waste

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm (MED) categories:

Extend item life / Most prioritised

Priority Behaviour:

Store food correctly

Check fridge/ freezer temps

Share excess food locally

COM-B Factors*:

C: Skills and knowledge

O: Time availability

M: Safety concerns

BCW Intervention Functions**:

E: Campaigns/ workshops on preservation techniques

P: Cost saving information

ME: Food sharing local community groups

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

C/M: ZWS campaigns

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

G & SP: Further research on best interventions for behaviours

G & SP: Further exploration of food sharing possibilities

5.8 Getting Access without Ownership & Optimising Item Use (MED: Sharing & Leasing) in the Transport Sector

Priority behaviours include ‘car sharing, bike sharing, e-bike/scooter sharing’ schemes where consumers use personal transport vehicles without gaining ownership. User preferences for types of sharing schemes can differ between rural and urban settings, population density, existing infrastructure and needs of population (Wappelhurst et al., 2014; Brüning et al., 2025). Within cities, free-floating services such as bike or scooter rental work well, whereas station-based services oriented around train or bus stations are more suitable in rural areas (Brüning et al., 2025; Shidler et al., 2024). Ramos et al. (2020) found that daily commute habits are a suitable proxy for habitual travel behaviour, therefore optimising this area may lead to overall reductions in personal private car usage. Environmental concern was also positively correlated with car sharing behaviour and willingness to avoid car ownership (Ramos et al., 2020).

5.8.1 Intervention: Funding Sharing Schemes

To promote car sharing initiatives, such as car clubs, the Scottish government has funded electric vehicle car sharing hubs for residential housing associations in select urban and rural areas in Scotland. These are administered by the Energy Saving Trust with funding from Transport Scotland (TS) (Transport Scotland, 2019). Such schemes provide may provide examples of how to best implement car clubs, which can inform future government initiatives, as well as the private sector efforts to provide carsharing services. Pilot schemes and funding for car clubs are key initiatives, therefore, that could promote carsharing amongst consumers and address concerns over convenience as best practices for providing these services continue to evolve (Transport Scotland, 2019).

In a report on travel demand management prepared for Transport Scotland (AECOM, 2023), road pricing such as charging drivers to travel by car, either within certain areas or over distances would also dissuade personal car usage. The study stated that maintaining lower fees for rural areas would lessen impact on those who are unable to switch transport methods due to lack of local sharing options. The cost-saving benefits of sharing schemes versus traditional car ownership were a significant motivator identified in the REA (Chou et al., 2022; Ramos et al., 2020; Bruning et al., 2025). These benefits could be emphasised to consumers to promote uptake.

5.8.2 Intervention: Improving Shared Transport Infrastructure

Improving infrastructure for carsharing and shared active transit may also promote uptake of these activities. Designated carpool and improved active transport lanes would make using these modes of transport safer and easier to use thus incentivising their use. Safety was a primary concern of users of active transport, such as bikes and scooters, identified by the REA (Julio & Monzon, 2022; Niessen et al., 2023)

In 2022, Transport Scotland published a route map to achieve a 20% reduction in car kilometres by 2030 (Transport Scotland, 2022). As of spring 2025 the 20% target has been dropped by the government (BBC, 2025). The route map was developed by the Scottish Government and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA). Broadly, the route map recommends encouraging people to access goods and services online or via online delivery whenever possible, and to opt for active or shared transport over personal car usage. The document also highlights interventions for promoting homeworking, which reduces car usage, such as the Fair Work First Action Plan, which aims to increase hybrid and flexible work arrangements in the public sector. It also mentions the Work Local Challenge Programme, which aims to create local work hubs as an alternative to homeworking and office working, which would also decrease the need to travel by car. The route map also has provisions for increasing active travel safety, such as Active Freeways to expand active-transport designated roads. Such interventions may address safety concerns indicated in the REA. As the existing route map is highly tailored to the Scottish context, it may be advisable to revisit why the 20% reduction was not feasible and determine how existing efforts can be scaled to achieve this goal, or a more realistic one. Public information is not currently available on how the Scottish government aims to proceed with car use reduction targets.

The Scottish Government could also engage with local authorities to assess car sharing willingness, and overall transit needs and car dependency to reduce car usage via sharing schemes. This is based on recommendations form the UK-wide Department of Transport Local Authority Toolkit for lift sharing. The guidance states local authorities should “monitor, report and gather data” on existing car usage to best meet community needs via shared transport initiatives (Department of Transport, 2022). Improved digital infrastructure, such as meeting goals for introducing broadband to 100% of Scottish households would also aid in improving access to transport sharing services (Rye et al., 2023; Transport Scotland, 2022) Communication around positive social impact of sharing schemes may also be advisable as there is evidence that they enhance social wellbeing and build sense of community (Transport Scotland, 2022).

“Optimising item use” in transport for sharing one’s personal private vehicle (e.g., carpooling) would involve similar interventions, though less research exists in this area. There is evidence that this practice is also on the decline (Aguiléra & Pigalle, 2021). Incentives for carpooling include dedicated carpooling lanes on highways, reserved parking place, or tradable credit schemes. Digital carpooling platforms can also facilitate this practice and should be further researched to investigate drivers and barriers to uptake (Aguiléra & Pigalle, 2021; Transport Scotland, 2022; Department of Transport, 2022). The UK Department of Transport’s local authority toolkit also provided recommendations for promoting lift sharing, which includes facilitating matching of community members for lift sharing purposes. Since lift sharing appears to be on the decline, if local authorities aided in this process, especially via digital platforms, consumers may be more likely to engage in these services (Department of Transport, 2022). More research is needed on the applicability to the Scottish context as this was an area of recommended further consultation in the Scottish 20% target route map.

5.9 Extending Item’s Life (MED: Maintain and Repair) in the Transport Sector

Within this priority behaviour category, maintenance and repair of vehicle(s) (i.e., cars and bikes) were prioritised. Independent repair has been identified as an important aspect of circular economy (Circular Communities Scotland, 2024). Regarding car repair, due to the highly technical nature of the skills needed in this repair and high potential cost to consumers if done incorrectly, facilitating affordable access to repair services should be prioritised (van der Velden et al., 2024). Knowledge transfer around bike repair would be more straightforward to achieve than car repair. Initiatives such as Circular Communities Scotland (CCS) can be used to help fund community repair services, educational workshops on repair, and leverage stakeholder connections to enhance these services (Circular Communities Scotland, 2024).

5.9.1 Intervention: Sustaining Community Initiatives

A point raised in the workshop that may be applicable to all sectors is the need to sustain community initiatives. Speaker 4 mentioned that grant funding is lacking for maintenance of community initiatives such as tool libraries or community cafes.

Speaker 4 stated,

“What you actually have is lots of social enterprises with great ideas that just don't quite break even, and the amount of government subsidy you would need on an ongoing basis to maintain a tool library or to maintain a community pantry would be a fraction of what you needed to set it up, but there is not continuity of community activity to me, that's really inefficient and I think really unhelpful for a habit forming stuff”.

Table 6^[8] presents a matrix of circular behaviours and interventions with associated drivers and barriers in the transport sector. The current policies together with identified gaps in the Scottish context are listed in the table summarising the related discussion in sections 5.8-5.9.

Table 6: Literature & stakeholder evidence-based overview of factors & interventions - transport

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm & Dalhammar (MED) categories:

Get access without ownership / MED: Share

Priority Behaviour:

Car/ bike/ e-bike/ scooter sharing

COM-B Factors*:

M: Environmental concern

O: Access to transport sharing

C: Convenience / cost of car ownership

BCW Intervention Functions**:

P: Target daily transport habits

E: Targeted environmental campaigns

ER: Car club pilots; bike/ car club (digital)

Infrastructure

C: Fees on car usage

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

F: TS funding for carsharing hubs

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

F: Increase carsharing hub pilots; expand to different contexts (rural, urban)

F: Explore fees for car usage

C/M: Public communication about cost benefits of carsharing

G & L & R: Revisit 2030 30% car kilometres reduction target

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm & Dalhammar (MED) categories:

Optimise item use / MED: Share

Priority Behaviour:

Share vehicle with others

COM-B Factors*:

M: Environmental concern

O: Access to transport sharing

C: Convenience / cost of car ownership

BCW Intervention Functions**:

ER: Expand research on carpooling behaviour; improve carpool infrastructure

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

SP: UKDT Toolkit for Lift Sharing

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

SP: Expand research for best lift sharing practices

Macklin / Maitre-Ekerm & Dalhammar (MED) categories:

Extend items life / MED: Maintain and Repair

Priority Behaviour:

Maintain and repair the cars and bikes

COM-B Factors*:

M: Gender related norms around repair

C: Repair skills

BCW Intervention Functions**:

T: Skill sharing in local repair hubs

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – Existing:

SP: CCS repair workshops

BCW Policy Categories – Scottish Context – To Develop:

SP: Expand repair workshop availability