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

6. Recommendations for Policy Interventions driving consumer behaviours that support a more circular economy

Based on the above findings, a set of recommendations has been developed on how the Scottish Government and other stakeholders such as industry and non-governmental organisations can best use the available and new state and private policy levers to promote the key behaviour changes needed to achieve goals for circular economy. The recommendations have been developed to support the Scottish Government in designing detailed and practical plans for policy action to support behaviour change to a greater level of granularity. This has been facilitated by the use of interconnected approaches to explore the causal interlinkages between the drivers and barriers to, and mechanisms to incentivise circular behaviours.

Existing Scottish policy and initiatives that could be leveraged in achieving changes in the priority behaviours were reviewed (Section 5 of this report) in relation to each priority behaviour across the selected key sectors – textiles, transport and food. Policies specific to each sector were investigated, although there is some overlap between policies and interventions across sectors. Interventions included those that align with existing policies and initiatives, and those that would require new policy, knowledge, and infrastructure.

Recommendations take account of:

• key barriers and wider structural/systemic drivers influencing behaviour;
• the need to maximise socio-economic and environmental co-benefits;
• and stakeholders’ views on effectiveness and public acceptability of interventions.

6.1 Textiles

As identified in Section 5.1, consumer education is one of the most effective interventions targeting the highest priority circular behaviour in the textiles consumption (optimising item use to reduce/ avoid purchasing). This is already a key intervention in Scotland, with Zero Waste Scotland and charities such as Keep Scotland Beautiful (with support from the Scottish Government) leading education campaigns with messaging around the negative environmental impact of textile waste. Such campaigns could be upscaled into combined interventions to increase the visibility and usefulness of information on the impact of clothing consumption, such as:

• in-person and social media information campaigns where educational material presented is easily relatable to individual consumption habits;
• provision of standardised government-issued guidance on clothing care and repair;
• promoting slow fashion concepts with an emphasis on local and ethical production to encourage awareness of artisanship and heritage and contribute to an overall culture of purchasing less clothing;
• mandatory circular economy curricula in schools to normalise long term circular behaviours;
• creating eco-labels where the EU Digital Product Passports may offer a framework for standardised product information that could be applied to Scotland.

The impact of consumer behaviour focused interventions will be maximised when combined with indirect ‘negative’ interventions limiting the accessibility of fast fashion through e.g., environmental taxes or those limiting in-store and online retail practices such as promotions that encourage overconsumption. This is well aligned with the Product Stewardship Plan as part of the Circular Economy and Waste Route Map to 2030. Leveraging extended producer responsibility policy would also encourage more responsible manufacture of clothing.

Stakeholders noted that responsibility has to be assigned proportionally to the power to act, i.e., that interventions targeting supply rather than consumption would have higher effectiveness in view of the broad systemic problems associated with fast fashion production and proliferation. This indicates that further action on the part of the Scottish Government to mitigate the supply of fast fashion will also reinforce the ‘softer’ direct interventions tailored towards more sustainable consumer behaviours.

As identified in Section 5.2, consumer repair skills education is the identified intervention targeting the second highest priority circular behaviour in the textiles consumption (extending item’s life through maintenance and repair). While there are some interventions implemented so far in Scotland, such as information marketing campaigns, the literature and stakeholder-based evidence indicate the need for more consistent education around clothing repair skills to support this behaviour, including:

• improved messaging capitalising on the identified willingness of younger consumers to engage in repair paired with second hand clothing access, and disconnecting maintenance and repair activities from traditional associations with thrift and frugality and instead framing them as modern, creative and environmentally revolutionary. This could be incorporated into the Zero Waste Scotland’s messaging;
• bringing back clothing repair education to school curricula;
• making information available to the general public via online curricula, apps streamlining clothing stewardship practices, in-person repair cafes and promoting ‘unpaid repair’ as a key source of repair knowledge.

The impact of consumer behaviour focused interventions would be maximised when combined with indirect interventions such as provision of funding (e.g., through ZWS Circular Economy Business Support Service) to establish repair cafes, and tax deductions to make them more accessible to consumers. Furthermore, provision of best practice guidelines aligned with Scottish Government’s circular economy goals would allow for more cohesive messages with broader information campaigns. This aligns well with plans under the Circular Economy and Waste Route Map to 2030 for support to sharing libraries and repair cafes.

As identified in Section 5.3, other priority circular behaviours such as sharing and leasing clothing items also have education as the identified intervention towards normalising behaviour, with a specific focus on dispelling mistrust around rental suppliers by encouraging transparency in practices, particularly around hygiene and cost savings. There have been initiatives such as ZWS’ Circular Textiles Fund and Revolve Reuse Knowledge Hub (RRKH) to support businesses in this area, however their viability depends on provision of research on how to further optimise and scale operations.

As identified in Section 5.4, identified interventions for the lowest priority circular behaviours in the textiles sector, minimising acquisition impact through buying second-hand include eco-labels to reinforce trust about the circular features of the products held to a regulation-backed standard. Funding research into ecolabelling design has been identified as a very current need. A caveat about designing interventions to encourage second-hand purchasing is the need to address potential excess consumerism in second-hand goods alongside the benefits of purchasing second-hand. Educational campaigns around the safety and sustainability of second-hand clothing targeting population segments less likely to engage in this behaviour, such as older individuals, could be prioritised.

6.2 Food

As identified in Section 5.5, interventions to minimise the food acquisition impact, primarily to encourage consumers to purchase lower-impact protein sources include educational and public awareness messaging around diet targeting price, taste, and health considerations. Legislation such as the Good Food Nation (GFN) (Scotland) Act 2022 could be used to establish standardised and evidence-based recommendations for plant-based foods consumption and its benefits and provide best practices for certifications. As mentioned by the Plant-Based Food Alliance, this could be reinforced by indirect interventions targeting the production and uptake of plant-based foods via subsidies for farmers producing crops for direct human consumption.

Promoting positive rather than negative or restrictive approaches and framing alternative protein consumption as ‘trying new foods’ could be prioritised over messaging focus on reducing meat consumption. Highlighting local or culturally relevant options that may appeal to a wider base of consumers, especially those that are older, would also be advisable.

Increasing the transparency of messaging around safety and the benefits of upcycled food products through educational campaigns in collaboration with brands and retailers could bridge the communication gap between industry and consumers. ZWS could also provide support to businesses producing these food products, similar to its Revolve Reuse Knowledge Hubs for textile reuse organisations.

As identified in Section 5.6, optimising item use was the most prioritised of the food sector circular behaviours and the complexity of factors influencing household food management dynamics prevents identifying optimal interventions. While tailoring education to the best extent possible should continue to be prioritised, accompanying this with research on how emerging AI tools can best be developed to minimise household food waste, and the likelihood of uptake by different groups could be considered to determine more effective interventions.

Stakeholders highlighted the importance of shifting more responsibility onto retailers to make sustainable options the easier choice and to create shopping environments that help people manage food better and prevent waste. Education and awareness campaigns can support households too, but evidence shows these work best when combined with changes in how retailers present and promote food.

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

An area of further research is the interaction between food skills and planning that also warrants further study in the Scottish context, and the social practice-based dynamics that may affect food waste behaviours. This is aligned with Zero Waste Scotland’s ‘Can-paign’ with messaging that targets key considerations around food habits, namely cost, taste and health. Educational measures such as these can be enhanced via collaboration with brands and retailers to communicate information in-store and on packaging. Continuing targeted research into ‘intelligent’ or upgraded and cost-effective packaging would also be advisable.

Further research into economic interventions that may reduce waste amongst consumers such as Pay-as-you-Throw schemes is needed to determine efficacy, best approaches to implementation and applicability in Scotland (Eunomia Research & Consulting, 2021).

Subsidising workplace and public canteens may also contribute to reduced food waste, as food management responsibility is shifted away from consumers for meals consumed at canteens. 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 Scotland could collaboratively investigate.

As stakeholders stated, if public entities model transparency in their waste mitigation strategies, consumers may be more likely to follow suit in their own homes, however further research is needed to determine how public procurement can shape household behaviour.

As identified in Section 5.7, interventions to encourage extending the working life of items are like those used to encourage optimising items, namely education to ensure the consumers have adequate skills in preserving food will be key. Complementarily, promoting food redistribution through interventions around reducing food waste could be used further downstream (i.e., in people’s homes) and as a last resort.

6.3 Transport

As identified in Section 5.8, circular behaviours in the transport sector such as car sharing schemes have been piloted with funding from Transport Scotland for electric vehicle sharing hubs for residential housing associations in select urban and rural areas in Scotland, which can inform future government and private initiatives. Scottish Government could engage with local authorities to assess car sharing willingness, attitudes towards the environment, and overall transit needs and car dependency when aiming to reduce car usage via sharing schemes.

Additional interventions that would require considerable investment is improving infrastructure for carsharing and shared active transit, such as designated carpool and bike lanes. Digital carpooling platforms may lead to improved uptake and should be further researched in order to investigate drivers and barriers to their uptake.

As identified in Section 5.9, 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 could be prioritised. 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.

6.4 Conclusions

This research has identified priority consumer behaviours in food, textiles and transport that can deliver the greatest impact for Scotland’s transition to a circular economy. It also highlighted the interventions most likely to support change, and where current Scottish Government and partner activity could be built upon.

A key finding is that combined interventions are likely to be more effective than isolated ones. This reflects both the complexity of behaviours and their interdependence. In every case, the ultimate purpose is to reduce demand for new products and virgin materials, to help deliver reductions in waste and emissions. To achieve this, interventions need to work in two directions at once: supporting the uptake of positive new behaviours, while also reducing old unsustainable ones.

Positive measures such as education, skills-building and making sustainable options more visible and affordable help people adopt better habits. Negative measures such as charges, restrictions or regulation help to phase out unsustainable behaviours. Taken together, they reinforce one another, ensuring that people have alternatives as less sustainable options are reduced.

The effectiveness of any intervention will depend on context, including who is likely to engage, the socio-economic and environmental impacts, and the feasibility of scaling. This suggests that interventions supporting higher-priority behaviours should be prioritised, but care must be taken to consider trade-offs, costs, and differences across geography and demographics. Complementary quantitative validation such as ex-ante impact assessment, multicriteria analysis, and tools like the Islands Community Impact Assessment or Rural Assessment Toolkit will be required before new interventions are implemented.

Stakeholders also emphasised the importance of sustaining community initiatives. Too often, projects such as repair cafés, tool libraries or community sharing schemes rely on short-term grants. Ongoing support, even at modest levels, could make a significant difference in embedding behaviours and creating long-term cultural change.

Finally, the research highlights the need to strengthen links between circular economy policy and related areas including climate, health, food, transport and social policy. For example, food sharing reduces waste but raises food safety concerns, e.g. has the food been handled correctly, requiring coordination between circular economy and health regulation while sharing schemes in both transport and food redistribution could also deliver social benefits by strengthening communities, linking circular and social policy agendas. Addressing these interactions explicitly, and analysing the trade-offs between them, will be important for moving forward with interventions that are both impactful and deliverable.